While I sympathize with the notion that modern psychiatric care cater tends to focus on ‘downstream’ effects, I’m not sure I would agree with the statement:
intervention to affect emotionality = perhaps the primary mediator of sound nerve function.
‘Sound nerve function’ requires a delicate balance of excitation and inhibition. So it’s incorrect to say:
increase emotional excitation = potential toimprove nerve excitation = long term neural well being
Just food for thought…
In terms of specifics, yes.
But re the contention in question - everything we feel in our body = mediated through neural spikes.
That's the basis of how we feel, electricity in neurons.
That electricity can be mediated by boosting or blocking receptors and channels on those neurons, which is where drug use comes in.
Or anything that mediates nerve function, particularly in the brain.
.......
Therefore, as emotion is mediated through these neural spikes, ANY drug acting on nerve function (in the brain), will affect our emotional state.
The links were to demonstrate that something as benign and considered non-psychoactive (conventionally) as
paracetamol, does indeed impact emotional state to a clinically-relevant level.
..........
In a sense, reverse engineering this situation, if we
focus on emotion specifically, a means to mediate our emotions, sway or influence them one way or another, positively - then by default it enhances the functionality of our nervous system;
Improves action potentials -> improves signalling = increase overall nervous system integrity and capability.
I believe this focus is characterized as
emotional-intelligence, which by way of modern therapeutic intervention is done via "cognitive therapy".
But I just don't think modern science has refined the process sufficiently to see the desired level of results........
But in time I think it can.