We aren't sure what OCDs neurobiological cause/effect is, but we know that administering Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitors like Fluoxetine/Prozac decreases the symptoms of OCD to managable levels. SSRIs don't actually cause more seratonin (HT-5) production, so how do they work? And if HT-5 isn't related to OCD, then why does fluoxetine affect the symptoms of OCD? Furthermore, what is the psychological cause, remedy and correlation with neurophysiological events?
Yes, there are many questions that stand in science today--that are as yet unanswered. The nature of science is that as much as we want to draw conclusions when what we know is inconclusive, we cannot do so. And when we draw false conclusions based on what we assume, we are not being scientific.
It certainly makes sense that OCD's neurological cause is that the person has personal and sociological issues in their lives and it shows up in the brain to be seen. I can see if one is coming from a "deterministic" paradigm, one would be unable to see this completely sensical point of view as being valid. That inability to see beyond a determined point of view would be like a self-fulfilling prophetic view from my view, rather than a truly truth-seeking/understanding point of view.
As in my own case, there was never a proven neurological correlate. It was all a theory that such existed, as there was no test done on me. And if we assume that there was a neurological correlate, I do know it was remedied, as the signs of illness in my behaviours disappeared. It was remedied by altering my behaviours, coping skills and changing my environment. All of that happened long after I went off of medication for OCD treatment.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I do, I pathologize my own behavior and I feel fine, I'm at least as happy as you are. If I find out I have TMJ joint problems, then I'll be even happier, because I love truth, it sets me free from the abyss of ignorance and allows for treatment.
Except you blind yourself to the ignorance of the good vs bad dichotomy that you continue to perpetuate. One can step beyond that ignorance to a place of understanding and knowledge when one is willing to clear their own inner filters.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Yes, there are many questions that stand in science today--that are as yet unanswered. The nature of science is that as much as we want to draw conclusions when what we know is inconclusive, we cannot do so. And when we draw false conclusions based on what we assume, we are not being scientific.
It certainly makes sense that OCD's neurological cause is that the person has personal and sociological issues in their lives and it shows up in the brain to be seen. I can see if one is coming from a "deterministic" paradigm, one would be unable to see this completely sensical point of view as being valid. That inability to see beyond a determined point of view would be like a self-fulfilling prophetic view from my view, rather than a truly truth-seeking/understanding point of view.
As in my own case, there was never a proven neurological correlate. It was all a theory that such existed, as there was no test done on me. And if we assume that there was a neurological correlate, I do know it was remedied, as the signs of illness in my behaviours disappeared. It was remedied by altering my behaviours, coping skills and changing my environment. All of that happened long after I went off of medication for OCD treatment.
You can't rule out your treatment as being successful. That is a self-serving point of view. It seems like your post doesn't address my questions, the real issues worthy of debate, rather it seeks to attack my point of view. All-the-while your assertions of psychiatry are even less founded in any kind of science, they are supported only by your prophecy. You are a troubling individual Angelica.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Except you blind yourself to the ignorance of the good vs bad dichotomy that you continue to perpetuate. One can step beyond that ignorance to a place of understanding and knowledge when one is willing to clear their own inner filters.
No, I'm not blinded by that dichotomy. You are blinded by the assertion that everything is peachy. You wouldn't label ALS as bad, but I would certainly say its dysfunctional. OCD and Schizophrenia are dysfunctions as well. Look, I know a lot of people on drugs, and I've taken my share as well. I'm not totally for or against prescription treatment. You on the other hand are very one-sided. Asserting that their is a conspiracy of psychiatry and pharmacological treatment. All that's needed to diagnose you paranoid schizophrenic is the claim that the FBI is behind it all. I'm not saying that would be an accurate diagnosis, but this thread is troubling.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
No, I'm not blinded by that dichotomy. You are blinded by the assertion that everything is peachy.
This is a straw man argument. Having suffered with OCD, bi-polar issues, addictions, etc. I well know things are not peachy.
Just like when I have a cold, I know things are not peachy. However, there is no point in demonizing the symptoms--the effects of what one has experienced. I tried it for years and it did not work in resolving these issues.
I talk of resolving the issues, and have done so myself with numerous "illnesses" and therefore know how it is done.
You wouldn't label ALS as bad, but I would certainly say its dysfunctional. OCD and Schizophrenia are dysfunctions as well. Look, I know a lot of people on drugs, and I've taken my share as well. I'm not totally for or against prescription treatment. You on the other hand are very one-sided. Asserting that their is a conspiracy of psychiatry and pharmacological treatment. All that's needed to diagnose you paranoid schizophrenic is the claim that the FBI is behind it all. I'm not saying that would be an accurate diagnosis, but this thread is troubling.
If you want to continue seeing me as "one-sided" you will. It's irrespective of what I've said. Either you deliberately misconstrue my argument, or you don't understand it.
The bottom line is that by your "pre-disposition" to the deterministic view-point, you are bound to the illness models. Your preconceptions prevent you from seeing the whole picture--as is the issue with psychiatry. It's the same as people who are bound to the dichotomy of good/bad judgments due to other types of predisposed beliefs.
You are bound to believe the brain as the cause. You are bound to seeing things linearly rather than seeing the holistic truth of what exists as is. Only when we accept what is, without moral judgment and blame can we understand it and change it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
This is a straw man argument. Having suffered with OCD, bi-polar issues, addictions, etc. I well know things are not peachy.
Just like when I have a cold, I know things are not peachy. However, there is no point in demonizing the symptoms--the effects of what one has experienced. I tried it for years and it did not work in resolving these issues.
I talk of resolving the issues, and have done so myself with numerous "illnesses" and therefore know how it is done.
If you want to continue seeing me as "one-sided" you will. It's irrespective of what I've said. Either you deliberately misconstrue my argument, or you don't understand it.
The bottom line is that by your "pre-disposition" to the deterministic view-point, you are bound to the illness models. Your preconceptions prevent you from seeing the whole picture--as is the issue with psychiatry. It's the same as people who are bound to the dichotomy of good/bad judgments due to other types of predisposed beliefs.
You are bound to believe the brain as the cause. You are bound to seeing things linearly rather than seeing the holistic truth of what exists as is. Only when we accept what is, without moral judgment and blame can we understand it and change it.
No susbtance here. Just wild speculation. I see more of the picture than you do Angelica. Not only do I see the complete work of art, I also see the detailed blobs of paint. That is the nature of reductionism, as I've already explained and it's far superior to your holistic-holon-integration-source-consciousness-blah-blah whatever.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
My guess is that someday you will awaken to what is beyond the current mass-accepted paradigms of the mind and be able to understand this issue.
Oh yes, someday I will have a supreme enlightening experience and I will be as awesome as you are Angelica. Then I will know everything through introspection and I'll make accurate prophetic predictions like Nostradamus.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Oh yes, someday I will have a supreme enlightening experience and I will be as awesome as you are Angelica. Then I will know everything through introspection and I'll make accurate prophetic predictions like Nostradamus.
When you understand my perspective or the perspective of the millions of others who have realized the path to recovery, you will show it by being understanding. It's plain and simple.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
are you two still at it? Looks like you're getting nowhere fast.
When 50 or 100 people a day are reading a point of view they may have little considered before, even if they disagree, they are becoming conscious of it. I consider that distinct progress.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
When you understand my perspective or the perspective of the millions of others who have realized the path to recovery, you will show it by being understanding. It's plain and simple.
What if I choose to take the red pill Morpheus?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Angelica, since I don't have an uplink to the universal consciousness or whatever, and I can't acquire absolute knowledge through introspection. Can you put in a request for information concerning this clicking in my jaw and get back to me? I'd really like to know what it is so I can get treatment. I don't imagine such a universal intelligence would need to know my symptoms. Unless the intelligence is actually http://www.Google.com
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It seems like your post doesn't address my questions, the real issues worthy of debate, rather it seeks to attack my point of view.
It sounds like you don't like the way I address your questions. That's the point of a discussion--we have differing points of view--you prioritize different aspects of being worthy of debate, based on your personal subjective perspective, as do I.
I see the validity of all positions. And I personally choose positions that serve me, as do all others. The problem is that often people think they are viewing the one and only truth, and are unconscious that they have chosen a view that serves their biggest purposes given the variables.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You took treatment, and your perspective alone rules it out as being successful. It may have had an effect you are unaware of that assisted in your recovery. Assuming you've actually recovered and aren't simply delusional about your condition.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It sounds like you don't like the way I address your questions. That's the point of a discussion--we have differing points of view--you prioritize different aspects of being worthy of debate, based on your personal subjective perspective, as do I.
I see the validity of all positions. And I personally choose positions that serve me, as do all others. The problem is that often people think they are viewing the one and only truth, and are unconscious that they have chosen a view that serves their biggest purposes given the variables.
Exactly, I don't have a known mental illness. So I have nothing to be ashamed of, though I'm certain I had a mental illness when I was a teenager that went misdiagnosed. Yet, I'm not ashamed of that either. The negative connotations doesn't bother me as it bothers you. Why do you think that is?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You took treatment, and your perspective alone rules it out as being successful. It may have had an effect you are unaware of that assisted in your recovery. Assuming you've actually recovered and aren't simply delusional about your condition.
Yes. When I have a goal to recover, and when I define my personal recovery as being free of any sign of illness, when I reach that goal--that recovery--I certainly define that as being successful. Actually, at one point, I believed for that to actually come to fruition would be a miracle. So to me it's miraculous, as well.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Exactly, I don't have a known mental illness. So I have nothing to be ashamed of, though I'm certain I had a mental illness when I was a teenager that went misdiagnosed. Yet, I'm not ashamed of that either. The negative connotations doesn't bother me as it bothers you. Why do you think that is?
The imbalanced dynamics that lower certain people while exalting others (so-called "experts") that are based on a flawed premise bother me because they keep many very sad, hurting people chronically ill and unempowered. I'm not really concerned with why that is not an issue for you, or why you deal with that same chronic illness in a different way.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The imbalanced dynamics that lower certain people while exalting others (so-called "experts") that are based on a flawed premise bother me because they keep many very sad, hurting people chronically ill and unempowered. I'm not really concerned with why that is not an issue for you, or why you deal with that same chronic illness in a different way.
I don't think it's imbalanced and I don't think psychiatrists feel exalted because they are mental health professionals. What is the flawed premise again? Perhaps the flawed premise is that psychiatrists get their rocks off by diagnosing people with mental illnesses.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I don't think it's imbalanced and I don't think psychiatrists feel exalted because they are mental health professionals. What is the flawed premise again? Perhaps the flawed premise is that psychiatrists get their rocks off by diagnosing people with mental illnesses.
You mean like this:
I just think Ahnimus hates his Mommy so since his Mommy isn't around he uses you [Angelica] as the love-object of his hate.
I remember reading that some months ago. It isn't verbatum. Some message board drug store psychologist.
I remember reading that some months ago. It isn't verbatum. Some message board drug store psychologist.
That's an interesting Freudian analysis. I'm sorry I missed it when it was posted.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The flawed premise is when one tells another they are inherently flawed, and uses the "power" of science to back it up, when all science knows in terms of the basis of such "illness" is inconclusive. This flawed premise sets up a self-fulfilling prophecy of chronic "illness" for millions worldwide. Which works for the doctors who treat such chronic illness.
Not to mention the whole expert/patient dichotomy stuff. When we're all on the same continuum, which we are, there is no difference in power between patients/doctors. The way it stands in the eyes of most, the "doctor" gets this exalting title alongside their name that commands respect, while the patient gets the label of "diseased" alongside theirs. Often the patient is minimized to the level of the disease with labels such as a "schizophrenic", rather than being a person WITH schizophrenia. Life, itself, holds both-- doctor/patient accountable for when they either hold themselves above, or hold themselves below the other.
I've said numerous times in this thread that doctors don't do this on purpose. They do it unconsciously, because like all humans, they were raised with power imbalances as if they are real and normal. Just like the patients do it unconsciously. It's about lack, and about the potential to find ways that work more effectively and efficiently for all involved. As we evolve and grow, and as we own the fact that we always have lots of room to grow and improve, these imbalances become more and more clear.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I just think Ahnimus hates his Mommy so since his Mommy isn't around he uses you [Angelica] as the love-object of his hate.
I remember reading that some months ago. It isn't verbatum. Some message board drug store psychologist.
The field of study transactional analysis calls this type of stuff out all the time. There are books that detail exactly how this type of condescending judgment minimizes people's human experiences, and contributes to the psycho-social power imbalances, with patients/experts being two sides of the same imbalanced coin. Transactional analysis places the responsibility on both the TA person and the person seeking support for any successes or failures. Both must be willing to stay aware of potential power struggles and dynamics.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The flawed premise is when one tells another they are inherently flawed, and uses the "power" of science to back it up, when all science knows in terms of the basis of such "illness" is inconclusive. This flawed premise sets up a self-fulfilling prophecy of chronic "illness" for millions worldwide. Which works for the doctors who treat such chronic illness.
Not to mention the whole expert/patient dichotomy stuff. When we're all on the same continuum, which we are, there is no difference in power between patients/doctors. The way it stands in the eyes of most, the "doctor" gets this exalting title alongside their name that commands respect, while the patient gets the label of "diseased" alongside theirs. Often the patient is minimized to the level of the disease with labels such as a "schizophrenic", rather than being a person WITH schizophrenia. Life, itself, holds both-- doctor/patient accountable for when they either hold themselves above, or hold themselves below the other.
I've said numerous times in this thread that doctors don't do this on purpose. They do it unconsciously, because like all humans, they were raised with power imbalances as if they are real and normal. Just like the patients do it unconsciously. It's about lack, and about the potential to find ways that work more effectively and efficiently for all involved. As we evolve and grow, and as we own the fact that we always have lots of room to grow and improve, these imbalances become more and more clear.
So this isn't about psychiatry then. It's about your ideology. Your philosophy.
"The flawed premise is when one tells another they are inherently flawed, and uses the "power" of science to back it up, when all science knows in terms of the basis of such "illness" is inconclusive."
Some of your best-loved prophets use this same technique, ten-fold. Deepak Chopra or Judith Z. Knight for example. They use the science of perception to suggest that most of us have a flawed perception. This should be familiar to you. Whereas science simply suggests that not all perceptions are valid and perhaps all perceptions are flawed to some degree. But the irony comes in when people use the science of perception to sequay into supernaturalism. Especially in terms of "What the BLEEP do we know?" where the central claim is that we create reality with our thoughts, the evidence used is scientific brain studies, which first requires an objective brain to exist in an external objective world, which means an external objective world does in-fact exist outside of our manifesting it with our consciousness. This is the type of stuff you subscribe to, and to some degree, the basis for your thoughts on this subject. So who's premise is flawed?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The field of study transactional analysis calls this type of stuff out all the time. There are books that detail exactly how this type of condescending judgment minimizes people's human experiences, and contributes to the psycho-social power imbalances, with patients/experts being two sides of the same imbalanced coin. Transactional analysis places the responsibility on both the TA person and the person seeking support for any successes or failures. Both must be willing to stay aware of potential power struggles and dynamics.
The field of study transactional analysis calls this type of stuff out all the time. There are books that detail exactly how this type of condescending judgment minimizes people's human experiences, and contributes to the psycho-social power imbalances, with patients/experts being two sides of the same imbalanced coin. Transactional analysis places the responsibility on both the TA person and the person seeking support for any successes or failures. Both must be willing to stay aware of potential power struggles and dynamics.
Shouldn't that be psychobiosocial? Or you are leaving out biology? Oh right, you are leaving out biology and replacing it with a hyphen.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So this isn't about psychiatry then. It's about your ideology. Your philosophy.
"The flawed premise is when one tells another they are inherently flawed, and uses the "power" of science to back it up, when all science knows in terms of the basis of such "illness" is inconclusive."
Some of your best-loved prophets use this same technique, ten-fold. Deepak Chopra or Judith Z. Knight for example. They use the science of perception to suggest that most of us have a flawed perception. This should be familiar to you. Whereas science simply suggests that not all perceptions are valid and perhaps all perceptions are flawed to some degree. But the irony comes in when people use the science of perception to sequay into supernaturalism. Especially in terms of "What the BLEEP do we know?" where the central claim is that we create reality with our thoughts, the evidence used is scientific brain studies, which first requires an objective brain to exist in an external objective world, which means an external objective world does in-fact exist outside of our manifesting it with our consciousness. This is the type of stuff you subscribe to, and to some degree, the basis for your thoughts on this subject. So who's premise is flawed?
I'm not into the philosophies of either JZ or Deepak. Check my myspace page for my influences....
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Shouldn't that be psychobiosocial? Or you are leaving out biology? Oh right, you are leaving out biology and replacing it with a hyphen.
You're entitled to, and do define your own concepts for your purposes. I do so for my own purposes, as well.
In the psycho-social view an individual is person-based, not brain based.
While they use meds to deal with their psycho-social issues as necessary and when they prove to be to the person's advantage, the biology of the person is secondary to the person as a whole.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You're entitled to, and do define your own concepts for your purposes. I do so for my own purposes, as well.
In the psycho-social view an individual is person-based, not brain based.
While they use meds to deal with their psycho-social issues as necessary and when they prove to be to the person's advantage, the biology of the person is secondary to the person as a whole.
Oh really? Biology is secondary to the whole person. So Psychology and Sociology are the only aspects of a person's whole? Interesting to know, I'm assuming this insight came from your supreme intelligence. I'm still waiting for my diagnosis, by the way. Also, let me know how to shed this body, I'm kind of bored of it, I'm looking for something a bit more muscular. It's a wonder their isn't a huge human body market for those of us unsatisfied with our current husks.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
It certainly makes sense that OCD's neurological cause is that the person has personal and sociological issues in their lives and it shows up in the brain to be seen. I can see if one is coming from a "deterministic" paradigm, one would be unable to see this completely sensical point of view as being valid. That inability to see beyond a determined point of view would be like a self-fulfilling prophetic view from my view, rather than a truly truth-seeking/understanding point of view.
As in my own case, there was never a proven neurological correlate. It was all a theory that such existed, as there was no test done on me. And if we assume that there was a neurological correlate, I do know it was remedied, as the signs of illness in my behaviours disappeared. It was remedied by altering my behaviours, coping skills and changing my environment. All of that happened long after I went off of medication for OCD treatment.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You can't rule out your treatment as being successful. That is a self-serving point of view. It seems like your post doesn't address my questions, the real issues worthy of debate, rather it seeks to attack my point of view. All-the-while your assertions of psychiatry are even less founded in any kind of science, they are supported only by your prophecy. You are a troubling individual Angelica.
No, I'm not blinded by that dichotomy. You are blinded by the assertion that everything is peachy. You wouldn't label ALS as bad, but I would certainly say its dysfunctional. OCD and Schizophrenia are dysfunctions as well. Look, I know a lot of people on drugs, and I've taken my share as well. I'm not totally for or against prescription treatment. You on the other hand are very one-sided. Asserting that their is a conspiracy of psychiatry and pharmacological treatment. All that's needed to diagnose you paranoid schizophrenic is the claim that the FBI is behind it all. I'm not saying that would be an accurate diagnosis, but this thread is troubling.
Just like when I have a cold, I know things are not peachy. However, there is no point in demonizing the symptoms--the effects of what one has experienced. I tried it for years and it did not work in resolving these issues.
I talk of resolving the issues, and have done so myself with numerous "illnesses" and therefore know how it is done.
If you want to continue seeing me as "one-sided" you will. It's irrespective of what I've said. Either you deliberately misconstrue my argument, or you don't understand it.
The bottom line is that by your "pre-disposition" to the deterministic view-point, you are bound to the illness models. Your preconceptions prevent you from seeing the whole picture--as is the issue with psychiatry. It's the same as people who are bound to the dichotomy of good/bad judgments due to other types of predisposed beliefs.
You are bound to believe the brain as the cause. You are bound to seeing things linearly rather than seeing the holistic truth of what exists as is. Only when we accept what is, without moral judgment and blame can we understand it and change it.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No susbtance here. Just wild speculation. I see more of the picture than you do Angelica. Not only do I see the complete work of art, I also see the detailed blobs of paint. That is the nature of reductionism, as I've already explained and it's far superior to your holistic-holon-integration-source-consciousness-blah-blah whatever.
Oh yes, someday I will have a supreme enlightening experience and I will be as awesome as you are Angelica. Then I will know everything through introspection and I'll make accurate prophetic predictions like Nostradamus.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
What if I choose to take the red pill Morpheus?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I see the validity of all positions. And I personally choose positions that serve me, as do all others. The problem is that often people think they are viewing the one and only truth, and are unconscious that they have chosen a view that serves their biggest purposes given the variables.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
You took treatment, and your perspective alone rules it out as being successful. It may have had an effect you are unaware of that assisted in your recovery. Assuming you've actually recovered and aren't simply delusional about your condition.
Exactly, I don't have a known mental illness. So I have nothing to be ashamed of, though I'm certain I had a mental illness when I was a teenager that went misdiagnosed. Yet, I'm not ashamed of that either. The negative connotations doesn't bother me as it bothers you. Why do you think that is?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I don't think it's imbalanced and I don't think psychiatrists feel exalted because they are mental health professionals. What is the flawed premise again? Perhaps the flawed premise is that psychiatrists get their rocks off by diagnosing people with mental illnesses.
You mean like this:
I remember reading that some months ago. It isn't verbatum. Some message board drug store psychologist.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
That's an interesting Freudian analysis. I'm sorry I missed it when it was posted.
Not to mention the whole expert/patient dichotomy stuff. When we're all on the same continuum, which we are, there is no difference in power between patients/doctors. The way it stands in the eyes of most, the "doctor" gets this exalting title alongside their name that commands respect, while the patient gets the label of "diseased" alongside theirs. Often the patient is minimized to the level of the disease with labels such as a "schizophrenic", rather than being a person WITH schizophrenia. Life, itself, holds both-- doctor/patient accountable for when they either hold themselves above, or hold themselves below the other.
I've said numerous times in this thread that doctors don't do this on purpose. They do it unconsciously, because like all humans, they were raised with power imbalances as if they are real and normal. Just like the patients do it unconsciously. It's about lack, and about the potential to find ways that work more effectively and efficiently for all involved. As we evolve and grow, and as we own the fact that we always have lots of room to grow and improve, these imbalances become more and more clear.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
So this isn't about psychiatry then. It's about your ideology. Your philosophy.
"The flawed premise is when one tells another they are inherently flawed, and uses the "power" of science to back it up, when all science knows in terms of the basis of such "illness" is inconclusive."
Some of your best-loved prophets use this same technique, ten-fold. Deepak Chopra or Judith Z. Knight for example. They use the science of perception to suggest that most of us have a flawed perception. This should be familiar to you. Whereas science simply suggests that not all perceptions are valid and perhaps all perceptions are flawed to some degree. But the irony comes in when people use the science of perception to sequay into supernaturalism. Especially in terms of "What the BLEEP do we know?" where the central claim is that we create reality with our thoughts, the evidence used is scientific brain studies, which first requires an objective brain to exist in an external objective world, which means an external objective world does in-fact exist outside of our manifesting it with our consciousness. This is the type of stuff you subscribe to, and to some degree, the basis for your thoughts on this subject. So who's premise is flawed?
I wish Oliver James would remember this.
Shouldn't that be psychobiosocial? Or you are leaving out biology? Oh right, you are leaving out biology and replacing it with a hyphen.
I'm not into the philosophies of either JZ or Deepak. Check my myspace page for my influences....
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
In the psycho-social view an individual is person-based, not brain based.
While they use meds to deal with their psycho-social issues as necessary and when they prove to be to the person's advantage, the biology of the person is secondary to the person as a whole.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Oh really? Biology is secondary to the whole person. So Psychology and Sociology are the only aspects of a person's whole? Interesting to know, I'm assuming this insight came from your supreme intelligence. I'm still waiting for my diagnosis, by the way. Also, let me know how to shed this body, I'm kind of bored of it, I'm looking for something a bit more muscular. It's a wonder their isn't a huge human body market for those of us unsatisfied with our current husks.