And yes, in my opinion, it's alright if they all have differences to bring to the table. The diversity is probably necessary and natural. And when we support and empower one another, the individual--anyone of us on that continuum--can pick and choose what works for them and keep it all in perspective.
For example, the average person who is predisposed to understand the science aspects of brain chemistry will likely not be as disposed to see the humanitarian issues, and vice versa. Each perspective is part of the wholeness view. And again, if the individual is empowered in their choices and recovery focused, they will be able to progress, using the strengths from different programs to meet their individual needs.
I challenge this term "humanitarian" and/or how it's being used. If "human" is the basis for humanitarian, than how is a human defined and what are it's properties. Their is a lot of diversity of perspectives on what exactly a human is. If we want to advance our perspective amongst the many, we need to set criteria for what we consider to be a matter of fact. What are the criteria needed to define a human? There is quite a bit of stuff to bridge before we come to terms with each other's perspectives Angelica. We need to go back to Epistemology I guess.
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 challenge this term "humanitarian" and/or how it's being used. If "human" is the basis for humanitarian, than how is a human defined and what are it's properties. Their is a lot of diversity of perspectives on what exactly a human is. If we want to advance our perspective amongst the many, we need to set criteria for what we consider to be a matter of fact. What are the criteria needed to define a human? There is quite a bit of stuff to bridge before we come to terms with each other's perspectives Angelica. We need to go back to Epistemology I guess.
Here I use the term "humanitarian" as I learned it regarding personality types. There are two types of intuitive/visionary personalities. You and I represent them both. One is a conceptualizer of concepts, such as sciences--impersonal systems. The other is focused on human or personal systems. I'm not at all attached to the word itself here. It's the concept I represent. So, again, people tend to have a one or the other focus, and can less understand the other "side". One might go into neurology, the other psychology. Both are completely relevent. Especially when one choosing services is empowered to trust their own self and purposes.
As I said earlier, my brother's mental health experiences have been totally different than my own. He considers it just about as good as a "cure" to have his symptoms at bay with meds. And he's not at all concerned with the psyche like I am, so he's relied mostly on psychiatrists. We've had different paths and different outcomes, dependent on who we are.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I challenge this term "humanitarian" and/or how it's being used. If "human" is the basis for humanitarian, than how is a human defined and what are it's properties. Their is a lot of diversity of perspectives on what exactly a human is. If we want to advance our perspective amongst the many, we need to set criteria for what we consider to be a matter of fact. What are the criteria needed to define a human? There is quite a bit of stuff to bridge before we come to terms with each other's perspectives Angelica. We need to go back to Epistemology I guess.
Chomsky on innate human qualities? I can only imagine.
I might give it a read, but I don't think discussion of innate human abilities is required for our definition of a human. My point was, in defining a human, we need to include the fact that humans are biological organisms. Therefor to be considered "humanitarian" the perspective should include all aspects that define a human, including biology. Psychology is great, but if a suspected psychological trait has no biological correlate, then it's questionable whether or not it is a real quality posessed by humans, or if it's an invalid inference.
While people mean well, there are several examples of this well-meant approach going wrong without sufficient evidence. In order for us to have a complete theory of human cognition we need congruency amongst all the aspects of a human. That was my point. If we ignore the biological structure of the mind, then we try to "recover" something psychologically or sociologically that can only be fixed biologically.
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 point was, in defining a human, we need to include the fact that humans are biological organisms. Therefor to be considered "humanitarian" the perspective should include all aspects that define a human, including biology. Psychology is great, but if a suspected psychological trait has no biological correlate, then it's questionable whether or not it is a real quality posessed by humans, or if it's an invalid inference.
Any holistic approach includes the biology. The label of "humanitarian" as is commonly used refers to the whole person as being a human, including the biology, and not just the biology.
Therefore reduction is great within the context of reduction for understanding breakdowns, however in terms of the human context and appreciating the fullness of what it means to be human, synthesis of all the pieces, including biology and what is material is necessary.
I understand you see it differently and believe unless something can be proven materially, it may not exist for you. This is what I refer to in that some people do not have a natural aptitude to grasp the subjective value of the individual human experience beyond science. And thankfully, there are a vast abundance of people in the humanitarian fields such as psychology or sociology, and in nation-wide organizations like the CMHA that have this perception as a natural inherent strength. To each their own.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Any holistic approach includes the biology. The label of "humanitarian" as is commonly used refers to the whole person as being a human, including the biology, and not just the biology.
Therefore reduction is great within the context of reduction for understanding breakdowns, however in terms of the human context and appreciating the fullness of what it means to be human, synthesis of all the pieces, including biology and what is material is necessary.
I understand you see it differently and believe unless something can be proven materially, it may not exist for you. This is what I refer to in that some people do not have a natural aptitude to grasp the subjective value of the individual human experience beyond science. And thankfully, there are a vast abundance of people in the humanitarian fields such as psychology or sociology, and in nation-wide organizations like the CMHA that have this perception as a natural inherent strength. To each their own.
I think you are missing the point, and I think you are wrong about your humanitarian friends. Professionals don't question peoples ideological beliefs. Think about what would happen if you were on your death bed, after a long life as a devout catholic and your surgeon says "This may be your last day, this surgery is very difficult, and by the way, SATAN SATAN SATAN!" or you know "God doesn't exist, so your gonna be snuffed out like a candle." both are totally unprofessional.
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 think you are missing the point, and I think you are wrong about your humanitarian friends. Professionals don't question peoples ideological beliefs. Think about what would happen if you were on your death bed, after a long life as a devout catholic and your surgeon says "This may be your last day, this surgery is very difficult, and by the way, SATAN SATAN SATAN!" or you know "God doesn't exist, so your gonna be snuffed out like a candle." both are totally unprofessional.
For example, my experiences with psychiatry and medicine are ripe with examples where the personal preference--in this case a lack of preference for personal human systems--seeped through the professional facade. Professionals are people too, and their own humanity shines through, regardless of their job description. For me, I can handle a professional who prefers impersonal systems. I just don't rely on them for my personal humanitarian issues. I may access their expertise as a tool. I can FEEL the difference strongly. Just like I can spot the cooperative, warm humanitarians a mile away on this board.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
For example, my experiences with psychiatry and medicine are ripe with examples where the personal preference--in this case a lack of preference for personal human systems--seeped through the professional facade. Professionals are people too, and their own humanity shines through, regardless of their job description. For me, I can handle a professional who prefers impersonal systems. I just don't rely on them for my personal humanitarian issues. I may access their expertise as a tool. I can FEEL the difference strongly. Just like I can spot the cooperative, warm humanitarians a mile away on this board.
Whereas I find 90% of the stuff you champion to be rather irrespective of the actual facts. I just want to know if my jaw can be fixed and what needs to be done. I don't need redevelopment training of my self-image, I'm not that fragile. I got Lansoprazole for reducing the production of stomach acid, it does not affect my self-image at all. I agree with this recovery thingy for some people, I personally would have no use for it, and such talk really just annoys me. I would go to a different doctor, one that spares me all the bullshit and gives it to me straight up.
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
In-fact, I'm a little discontented with this patient-choice phenomena. You go to a doctor with some symptoms, they say "Well you can do A, B or C. A has these side-effects, B has these side-effects, and C has these side-effects." I'm not there for a course in pharmacology, just tell me what I should do, what does the professional with all the background knowledge think I should do. Certainly his opinion will be superior to mine, assuming I'm ignorant of pharmacology and psychiatry.
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
Whereas I find 90% of the stuff you champion to be rather irrespective of the actual facts. I just want to know if my jaw can be fixed and what needs to be done. I don't need redevelopment training of my self-image, I'm not that fragile. I got Lansoprazole for reducing the production of stomach acid, it does not affect my self-image at all. I agree with this recovery thingy for some people, I personally would have no use for it, and such talk really just annoys me. I would go to a different doctor, one that spares me all the bullshit and gives it to me straight up.
And more power to you in your own self-direction.
In my supportive role in the mental health realm, I support people where they are and with what they see and define. I support their view as is, no question. No matter how much I disagree--someone else's view is not about me.
Talking on a board like this is different because it's a place where I develop my own personal views, so I give my own perspective free reign knowing others are equal and as such have their own views.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
In-fact, I'm a little discontented with this patient-choice phenomena. You go to a doctor with some symptoms, they say "Well you can do A, B or C. A has these side-effects, B has these side-effects, and C has these side-effects." I'm not there for a course in pharmacology, just tell me what I should do, what does the professional with all the background knowledge think I should do. Certainly his opinion will be superior to mine, assuming I'm ignorant of pharmacology and psychiatry.
That's certainly a choice. I've relinquished my power to doctors before, fully--believing they know better. Therefore I had surgery on my ear, without even looking into it, and it resulted in hearing loss. I've learned empowerment is my friend. And whenever I relinquish my will to a professional, it's because I've chosen to in empowered way, not because of unconscious power or psycho-social dynamics beneath the surface.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Which brings me to a crucial point here, in empowerment: We are all responsible for all of our actions at all times--even when we have psychiatric issues. The idea of there being a "victim" is an illusion. When we have choice we have power and if we are awake (conscious), we have a choice. Granted, often due to psycho-social training, those with psychiatric issues may find themselves feeling quite unempowered--I felt powerLESS for many, many years. No matter how much we feel unempowered, or no matter how much we give our power away, life always holds us accountable for the choices we make including giving away our power. It's like when I relinquished my power to the ear surgeon and I ended up paying the price with hearing loss. It's like when I let my birth control issues go to "fate" and changed the course of my life by conceiving a child, through whose birth, post-partum depression and severe mental illness was triggered. I was powerless because I was not aware of how much I gave away my power, and my choice, unconsciously. The idea that a professional has more power is absolutely an illusion, too, and unfortunately both sides of the coin buy into such a myth, perpetuating it's falseness.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I still think we need to talk epistemology, before we go back to presonal responsibility.
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
We need to start at the beginning. How do we know what we know? And why is it true?
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 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'm wondering why you would like to talk epistemology. We've covered the foundations of our beliefs many times. We don't agree and that makes sense to me--I'm okay with it.
If you would like me to clarify a term of whatever, I'm completely up for that.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
I challenge this term "humanitarian" and/or how it's being used. If "human" is the basis for humanitarian, than how is a human defined and what are it's properties. Their is a lot of diversity of perspectives on what exactly a human is. If we want to advance our perspective amongst the many, we need to set criteria for what we consider to be a matter of fact. What are the criteria needed to define a human? There is quite a bit of stuff to bridge before we come to terms with each other's perspectives Angelica. We need to go back to Epistemology I guess.
As I said earlier, my brother's mental health experiences have been totally different than my own. He considers it just about as good as a "cure" to have his symptoms at bay with meds. And he's not at all concerned with the psyche like I am, so he's relied mostly on psychiatrists. We've had different paths and different outcomes, dependent on who we are.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Have you been reading Foucault recently Ahnimus?
If not, check this out: http://www.amazon.com/Chomsky-Foucault-Debate-Human-Nature/dp/1595581340/ref=sr_1_1/102-3233294-1300157?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192089491&sr=8-1
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Chomsky on innate human qualities? I can only imagine.
I might give it a read, but I don't think discussion of innate human abilities is required for our definition of a human. My point was, in defining a human, we need to include the fact that humans are biological organisms. Therefor to be considered "humanitarian" the perspective should include all aspects that define a human, including biology. Psychology is great, but if a suspected psychological trait has no biological correlate, then it's questionable whether or not it is a real quality posessed by humans, or if it's an invalid inference.
While people mean well, there are several examples of this well-meant approach going wrong without sufficient evidence. In order for us to have a complete theory of human cognition we need congruency amongst all the aspects of a human. That was my point. If we ignore the biological structure of the mind, then we try to "recover" something psychologically or sociologically that can only be fixed biologically.
Therefore reduction is great within the context of reduction for understanding breakdowns, however in terms of the human context and appreciating the fullness of what it means to be human, synthesis of all the pieces, including biology and what is material is necessary.
I understand you see it differently and believe unless something can be proven materially, it may not exist for you. This is what I refer to in that some people do not have a natural aptitude to grasp the subjective value of the individual human experience beyond science. And thankfully, there are a vast abundance of people in the humanitarian fields such as psychology or sociology, and in nation-wide organizations like the CMHA that have this perception as a natural inherent strength. To each their own.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I think you are missing the point, and I think you are wrong about your humanitarian friends. Professionals don't question peoples ideological beliefs. Think about what would happen if you were on your death bed, after a long life as a devout catholic and your surgeon says "This may be your last day, this surgery is very difficult, and by the way, SATAN SATAN SATAN!" or you know "God doesn't exist, so your gonna be snuffed out like a candle." both are totally unprofessional.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Whereas I find 90% of the stuff you champion to be rather irrespective of the actual facts. I just want to know if my jaw can be fixed and what needs to be done. I don't need redevelopment training of my self-image, I'm not that fragile. I got Lansoprazole for reducing the production of stomach acid, it does not affect my self-image at all. I agree with this recovery thingy for some people, I personally would have no use for it, and such talk really just annoys me. I would go to a different doctor, one that spares me all the bullshit and gives it to me straight up.
In my supportive role in the mental health realm, I support people where they are and with what they see and define. I support their view as is, no question. No matter how much I disagree--someone else's view is not about me.
Talking on a board like this is different because it's a place where I develop my own personal views, so I give my own perspective free reign knowing others are equal and as such have their own views.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
We need to start at the beginning. How do we know what we know? And why is it true?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Heheh.
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.
wtf is the problem now?
"There are no problems, only solutions." The Beatle man
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.
If you would like me to clarify a term of whatever, I'm completely up for that.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!