Science Without a Soul

angelica

anotherclone wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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?

Ahnimus

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

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

You can't rule out your treatment as being successful.

What do you mean by this?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

What do you mean by this?

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.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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.

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

gue_barium wrote:

You mean like this:

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.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

What is the flawed premise again?

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.

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

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.

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.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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?

FinsburyParkCarrots

angelica wrote:

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.

I wish Oliver James would remember this.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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....

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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.