typhoid illness or dis_ease?
external or internal causes?
something you have to accept, or something you can change?
external chemicals or internal chemicals?
when we have to code, does this alter the perspective?
two models. one question.
ill naming it
doesn't change a thing
failing to make sense of it dis-ease. i suppose it doesn't have to be something terminal, or even contagious. just uncomfortable. 021119
lyrical reference system disease
matchbox twenty
more than you think you are

Feels like you made a mistake
You made somebody's heart break
But now I have to let you go
I have to let you go

You left a stain
On every one of my good days
But I am stronger than you know
I have to let you go

No one's ever turned you over
No one's tried
To ever let you down,
Beautiful girl
Bless your heart

I got a disease
Deep inside me
Makes me feel uneasy baby
I can't live without you
Tell me what I am supposed to do about it
Keep your distance from it
Don't pay no attention to me
I got a disease

Feels like you're making a mess
You're hell on wheels in a black dress
You drove me to the fire
And left me there to burn

Every little thing you do is tragic
All my life, oh was magic
Beautiful girl
I can't breathe

I got a disease
Deep inside me
Makes me feel uneasy baby
I can't live without you
Tell me what I am supposed to do about it
Keep your distance from it
Don't pay no attention to me
I got a disease
I think that I'm sick
But leave me be while my world is coming down on me
You taste like honey, honey
Tell me can I be your honey
Be, be strong
Keep telling myself it that won't take long till
I'm free of my disease

Yeah well free of my disease
Free of my disease
Sam Vaknin We are all terminally ill. It is a matter of time before we all die. Aging and death remain almost as mysterious as ever. We feel awed and uncomfortable when we contemplate these twin afflictions. Indeed, the very word denoting illness contains its own best definition: dis-ease. A mental component of lack of well being must exist SUBJECTIVELY. The person must FEEL bad, must experience discomfiture for his condition to qualify as a disease. To this extent, we are justified in classifying all diseases as "spiritual" or "mental".

Is there any other way of distinguishing health from sickness - a way that does NOT depend on the report that the patient provides regarding his subjective experience?

Some diseases are manifest and others are latent or immanent. Genetic diseases can exist - unmanifested - for generations. This raises the philosophical problem or whether a potential disease IS a disease? Are AIDS and Haemophilia carriers - sick? Should they be treated, ethically speaking? They experience no dis-ease, they report no symptoms, no signs are evident. On what moral grounds can we commit them to treatment? On the grounds of the "greater benefit" is the common response. Carriers threaten others and must be isolated or otherwise neutered. The threat inherent in them must be eradicated. This is a dangerous moral precedent. All kinds of people threaten our well-being: unsettling ideologists, the mentally handicapped, many politicians. Why should we single out our physical well-being as worthy of a privileged moral status? Why is our mental well being, for instance, of less import?

Moreover, the distinction between the psychic and the physical is hotly disputed, philosophically. The psychophysical problem is as intractable today as it ever was (if not more so). It is beyond doubt that the physical affects the mental and the other way around. This is what disciplines like psychiatry are all about. The ability to control "autonomous" bodily functions (such as heartbeat) and mental reactions to pathogens of the brain are proof of the artificialness of this distinction.

It is a result of the reductionist view of nature as divisible and summable. The sum of the parts, alas, is not always the whole and there is no such thing as an infinite set of the rules of nature, only an asymptotic approximation of it. The distinction between the patient and the outside world is superfluous and wrong. The patient AND his environment are ONE and the same. Disease is a perturbation in the operation and management of the complex ecosystem known as patient-world. Humans absorb their environment and feed it in equal measures. This on-going interaction IS the patient. We cannot exist without the intake of water, air, visual stimuli and food. Our environment is defined by our actions and output, physical and mental.

Thus, one must question the classical differentiation between "internal" and "external". Some illnesses are considered "endogenic" (=generated from the inside). Natural, "internal", causes - a heart defect, a biochemical imbalance, a genetic mutation, a metabolic process gone awry - cause disease. Aging and deformities also belong in this category.

In contrast, problems of nurturance and environment - early childhood abuse, for instance, or malnutrition - are "external" and so are the "classical" pathogens (germs and viruses) and accidents.

But this, again, is a counter-productive approach. Exogenic and Endogenic pathogenesis is inseparable. Mental states increase or decrease the susceptibility to externally induced disease. Talk therapy or abuse (external events) alter the biochemical balance of the brain. The inside constantly interacts with the outside and is so intertwined with it that all distinctions between them are artificial and misleading. The best example is, of course, medication: it is an external agent, it influences internal processes and it has a very strong mental correlate (=its efficacy is influenced by mental factors as in the placebo effect).

The very nature of dysfunction and sickness is highly culture-dependent. Societal parameters dictate right and wrong in health (especially mental health). It is all a matter of statistics. Certain diseases are accepted in certain parts of the world as a fact of life or even a sign of distinction (e.g., the paranoid schizophrenic as chosen by the gods). If there is no dis-ease there is no disease. That the physical or mental state of a person CAN be different - does not imply that it MUST be different or even that it is desirable that it should be different. In an over-populated world, sterility might be the desirable thing - or even the occasional epidemic. There is no such thing as ABSOLUTE dysfunction. The body and the mind ALWAYS function. They adapt themselves to their environment and if the latter changes - they change. Personality disorders are the best possible responses to abuse. Cancer may be the best possible response to carcinogens. Aging and death are definitely the best possible response to over-population. Perhaps the point of view of the single patient is incommensurate with the point of view of his species - but this should not serve to obscure the issues and derail rational debate.

As a result, it is logical to introduce the notion of "positive aberration". Certain hyper- or hypo- functioning can yield positive results and prove to be adaptive. The difference between positive and negative aberrations can never be "objective". Nature is morally-neutral and embodies no "values" or "preferences". It simply exists. WE, humans, introduce our value systems, prejudices and priorities into our activities, science included. It is better to be healthy, we say, because we feel better when we are healthy. Circularity aside - this is the only criterion that we can reasonably employ. If the patient feels good - it is not a disease, even if we all think it is. If the patient feels bad, ego-dystonic, unable to function - it is a disease, even when we all think it isn't. Needless to say that I am referring to that mythical creature, the fully informed patient. If someone is sick and knows no better (has never been healthy) - then his decision should be respected only after he is given the chance to experience health.

All the attempts to introduce "objective" yardsticks of health are plagued and philosophically contaminated by the insertion of values, preferences and priorities into the formula - or by subjecting the formula to them altogether. One such attempt is to define health as "an increase in order or efficiency of processes" as contrasted with illness which is "a decrease in order (=increase of entropy) and in the efficiency of processes". While being factually disputable, this dyad also suffers from a series of implicit value-judgements. For instance, why should we prefer life over death? Order to entropy? Efficiency to inefficiency?

Health and sickness are different states of affairs. Whether one is preferable to the other is a matter of the specific culture and society in which the question is posed. Health (and its lack) is determined by employing three "filters" as it were:

Is the body affected?
Is the person affected? (dis-ease, the bridge between "physical" and "mental illnesses)
Is society affected?
In the case of mental health the third question is often formulated as "is it normal" (=is it statistically the norm of this particular society in this particular time)?

We must re-humanize disease. By imposing upon issues of health the pretensions of the accurate sciences, we objectified the patient and the healer alike and utterly neglected that which cannot be quantified or measured - the human mind, the human spirit.
Annie111 Love has crippled me. The disease riddles my body with holes, termite paths and ripples through flesh rendered useless. Love will never leave me, like a murderous plague it descends in the thick of night, wasting the blackness in swathes of bile and tepid stench. Music is the ointment that bathes my ills and smothers the sores in deeper. Starve a cold, feed a fever. Feed and feed and gorge until we overflow, a maddening exhausting, silent and stationary dance, havoc wreaked within the confines of the heart.

The days lengthen and stretch into months so that I can see my breath, the breath that will never reach you again. I wrap my scarf tighter so that I will not catch a cold.
ilovemycons the word disease sounds so vile!!! 041119
keep breathing life is a sexually transmitted diease 041130
jlymry327 i am at dis ease
i am lonely and sad
at this moment my disease has destroyed everything
whats burried underneath
Syrope i find her absolutely repulsive.

i want to tear down a complete stranger, because of the attention she gets from you.

oh that's rational.

and what's even better is i'm only not, because it would hurt you.

i'm worried about
hurting some useless sack of shit
because you would be disappointed
in me



krupt love is a disease...

love is the reason im so depressed,
love is the reason im so repressed,
love is the reason i clecnch my fists,
love is the reason i cut my wrists,
love is the reason i hate her thought,
love is the reason that we faught,
love is the reason i feel pain,
love is the reason she's my bain,
love is the reason im on drugs,
love is the reason i pass out on the rug,
love is the reason it's become a fact,
love is the reason i want her back...
what's it to you?
who go