Disclaimer
This information is provided for informational purposes only. For medical advice or diagnosis, please consult a qualified professional.
Throughout my life, I have encountered many individuals struggling with mental illness. Reflecting on these encounters and my own experiences, I feel that the current landscape surrounding mental health is not ideal. Modern psychiatry leans too heavily toward how brain hormones affect the mind and cause abnormalities. While such research is vital for developing psychotropic drugs and symptomatic treatments, it feels insufficient for reaching a fundamental resolution. What I write here is strictly my opinion and assertion as an affected individual.
Depression, for instance, manifests in countless ways, but its core characteristic is the psychological obstruction of many human activities. Pathologically, this is explained through various lenses, ranging from hormonal actions in the brain to viral influences. Despite clinical variations, symptoms are categorized into standardized diagnostic criteria like the DSM (American Psychiatric Association) or the ICD (WHO). While symptoms are consolidated, the pathological explanations remain diverse. The same applies to schizophrenia; its manifestations are even more varied than depression, yet it is grouped under similar criteria, with a multitude of differing pathological theories.
My point is not that we should place more weight on individual symptoms to provide distinct treatments—though that is necessary, and psychiatrists work tirelessly within limited prescriptions and environments. I have no intention of voicing grievances against these professionals. As stated, I am writing from the perspective of an affected person.
In my previous blog posts, I have suggested that the “mind” is fundamentally based on the state of “being here.” If we follow this premise, various mental illnesses might be explainable. Put simply, I believe mental illness may be a disruption in the relationship between our five senses—taste, smell, touch, sight, and hearing—and our memory. This perspective could explain why schizophrenia involves hallucinations and delusions, or why depression involves depressive states sometimes accompanied by mania. It might even clarify the mechanisms of panic disorder.
My first assertion is: what is the mind? Its foundation is the fact of “being here,” something one cannot know through oneself alone. To know that I “am here,” the existence of others is required. This is a crucial point for my argument, though explaining it is arduous and lengthy.
To illustrate simply: suppose “I am in Tokyo.” Can I know this by “myself alone”? This means more than just having no map or no one to ask. It means there is no Tokyo Station, no Tokyo Tower, no Skytree, and no other buildings. If there are no buildings, there is only a road—but to know it “by myself alone,” even the road must not exist. Without a road, there is no address. Without an address, the name “Tokyo” cannot exist. “I” cannot know “I am in Tokyo” by “myself alone.”
My argument is that the statement “I exist in [Place X]” is always a contrast with something else. Only by having an object of comparison—a road, a building—can one say “I am here.” If “being here” is a contrast, must “I” always be comparing myself to something? Furthermore, if the objects of comparison change frequently, one might fear that their sense of “place” becomes unstable. Such a concern is valid; such a life is exhausting. The modern information society, brought about by the internet and smartphones, vividly illustrates this susceptibility to exhaustion.
However, my claim is not that the modern information society created this susceptibility, but rather that advanced information technology has made it conspicuous. How so? Today, “I” can access vast amounts of information—from the latest fashion brands to what someone else ate for dinner. Accessing this information doesn’t just increase the number of comparison points; it amplifies the sense of what “others” desire.
Even before the internet, fashion magazines and gourmet guides existed. Even in the Edo period, media like “Banzuke” (rankings) existed. With advancements in printing and logistics, the volume and speed of these publications increased, making comparison targets more numerous and volatile. Yet, these exist because there is demand. People seek what many others seek, but I believe the fundamental reason isn’t mere popularity; it is because humans seek “empathy” (consensus) with others.
Empathy is a form of agreement—an agreement to hold similar feelings or thoughts. The more people reach this agreement, the more excitement one feels upon discovering it. This is why rankings and magazines are in demand. But why do we seek this agreement?
I believe agreement plays a vital role in the “contrast” required to know “I am here.” While “being here” requires constant comparison, a volatile target makes our psychological location unstable and exhausting. Agreement serves to prevent this “instability of place.” This may sound like a discussion on romance, but it extends further. This “instability” isn’t just psychological. The “I am in Tokyo” example applies here too: I am in Tokyo today, and it won’t suddenly become Chiba tomorrow because there is a firm social consensus that this place is Tokyo.
In the realm of psychological location, consensus is often expressed as empathy. If “being here” is the basis of the mind, then empathizing with something means affirming oneself and the other party, clarifying one’s position through that “something.” For instance, if you visit a popular vegetarian ramen shop, you secure your position as a vegetarian—or at least, a third party perceives you as such. This exemplifies how a third party is necessary to define one’s own standing. To know “I am here,” “others” are indispensable.
Empathy—a form of agreement—originally serves to stabilize and fix the state of “being here.” So, how has the information society affected this?
In our digital age, the formation of “popularity” and “social consensus through empathy” has become effortless. “Likes” and view counts quantify and visualize popularity. Moreover, these trends emerge and vanish rapidly. Being part of what is “popular” allows one to feel like part of a majority. As I mentioned, seeking empathy allows one to secure their position and affirm themselves. The larger the majority, the more robust that position feels.
However, isn’t this need for the majority precisely because we are fundamentally distinct individuals? Because we are different, we seek the joy of empathy. The modern information society has distorted this. Popularity is no longer just a source of joy; it has become a shortcut to a “robust position.” The majority is easily equated with “good.” This visualization of the majority also applies to negation—online “flaming” and cyberbullying are examples.
In digital spaces, collective consciousness is easily formed. For those in the majority, empathy itself becomes a prerequisite for belonging. If someone in a vegetarian group says, “I want a hamburger,” they are excluded. The ease of empathy in the information society has shifted empathy from being an “end” (the joy of connection) to a “means” of forming collective consciousness.
How does this relate to mental illnesses like depression, schizophrenia, or panic disorder?
If “being here” is the foundation of the mind, and consensus/empathy stabilizes that state, then the modern information society makes this stabilization increasingly difficult. The five senses are essential for reaching consensus or empathy. Senses like sight and hearing are crucial for gathering external information. Memories are formed based on this sensory input. In modern society, the sheer volume of sensory information has exploded.
In the human body, sensory information is converted into electrical signals (potential differences) that travel through the brain. The body has a mechanism where it cannot accept excessive stimulation beyond a certain threshold. My assertion is that mental illness occurs when the formation of the five senses and memory is disrupted by exposure to excessive stimulation.
In depression, the body may attempt to shut out information from the five senses to cope with overstimulation, manifesting as a suppression of human activity. If this lockout fails and memory formation itself is disrupted, symptoms akin to schizophrenia may emerge. Panic disorder, conversely, might be a state where the senses become hyper-sensitive rather than shutting down. This variety in stimulation and reaction explains why symptoms are so diverse among individuals.
The fact that psychotropic drugs essentially dull brain activity—equivalent to dulling sensory input—suggests my assertion is not far off. However, simply shutting out information is not a cure. What is truly needed is the restoration of the “fixation and stabilization of being here” that was hindered by overstimulation. Communication is necessary for this stabilization, yet communicating with someone whose sensory processing and memory formation are disrupted is incredibly difficult.
While modern psychiatry may lean toward biochemistry, treatments like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) are being utilized. In my view, CBT is a way to soften external stimuli. Mindfulness, a form of CBT similar to Zen meditation, emphasizes “being here now” and sharpening the senses. This aligns with my theory.
However, I am not recommending that readers practice CBT or mindfulness on their own. Psychiatrists see aspects of a patient’s condition that the patient themselves cannot see. One should not lightly practice these treatments without proper preparation and responsibility. As an affected individual, I simply wished to cast a small stone into the waters of modern psychiatry, which currently remains heavily focused on biochemical analysis.
