Science Without a Soul

Ahnimus

So, are you trying to change the topic Angelica? We aren't talking about psychiatry's dark and gloomy past anymore and the super conspiracy of psychiatrists that want to dumb us all down and profit from negatively labeling us as disordered?

Now we are talking about the recovery method? Which seems like a very good method, it's exactly what is supported in all the literature I've read on human cognition. No practitioner is encouraged to discuss philosophical issues with a patient. That is strictly for the realm of family and friends. Like I said, the reciprocity between psychological and biological states is not well understood. We know that physically upregulating certain chemicals we can affect mood and affect behavior, but we don't know how much influence the brain has on its self. We do know that social events and psychological events affect change on the brain. I didn't think that was ever a matter of debate. The debate was, the dark and gloomy, secret nature of psychiatry.

angelica

"In insanity we do not discover anything new and unknown; we
are looking at the foundations of our own being, the matrix of
those vital problems on which we are all engaged."
~Jung

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

"In insanity we do not discover anything new and unknown; we
are looking at the foundations of our own being, the matrix of
those vital problems on which we are all engaged."
~Jung

I disagree with his entire ideology.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

So, are you trying to change the topic Angelica? We aren't talking about psychiatry's dark and gloomy past anymore and the super conspiracy of psychiatrists that want to dumb us all down and profit from negatively labeling us as disordered?

While there are many mental health agencies with a progressive humanitarian focus that encourages healing, there remains a ludicrous amount of horrors being done in the name of mental health. Including widespread and grave ignorance.


If you go back and look, I was pushing recovery towards the beginning of the thread, quoting the CMHA and saying I stand behind them in a lengthy post.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

While there are many mental health agencies with a progressive humanitarian focus that encourages healing, there remains a ludicrous amount of horrors being done in the name of mental health. Including widespread and grave ignorance.


If you go back and look, I was pushing recovery towards the beginning of the thread, quoting the CMHA and saying I stand behind them in a lengthy post.

That's my problem. Too many lengthy posts with language I find to be largely incomprehensible. It's not your fault though, you speak a completely different language, it doesn't compute well with my mainframe. It might help if you define key terms.

I don't understand who these organizations are. If CMHA is a federal organization and they are in favor of this recovery thingy, then who isn't following suit? And is it alright if they have a difference of opinion?

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

That's my problem. Too many lengthy posts with language I find to be largely incomprehensible. It's not your fault though, you speak a completely different language, it doesn't compute well with my mainframe. It might help if you define key terms.

I don't understand who these organizations are. If CMHA is a federal organization and they are in favor of this recovery thingy, then who isn't following suit? And is it alright if they have a difference of opinion?

I'll try to simplify a very, very complex subject.

I'm involved with two progressive mental health agencies that are based on recovery and empowerment. They both embrace the use of psychiatry as a tool of empowerment and recovery. As I've done through my own recovery, long before involvement with these agencies.

The problem is with psychiatry as an authority, without the recovery focus. That is what psychiatry generally is. The focus is about illness, where humans are looked down upon as lacking. The human value and meaning of the individual's experiences becomes the victim of science reductionism. When a human and their experiences are reduced to mere chemicals, and when one is vulnerable and impressionable at a such a low point, one is at the mercy of the doctor who creates a devastating experience using the illness/disempowerment model. This is not a thing of the past, it is current.

In its place as a tool, and using actual science and when not misconstruing speculation as fact, psychiatry is very valuable.

angelica

Oh, and the CMHA, while Canada-wide, is a charitable organization. They don't have dominion over anyone, although they work with many organizations.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

I'll try to simplify a very, very complex subject.

I'm involved with two progressive mental health agencies that are based on recovery and empowerment. They both embrace the use of psychiatry as a tool of empowerment and recovery. As I've done through my own recovery, long before involvement with these agencies.

The problem is with psychiatry as an authority, without the recovery focus. That is what psychiatry generally is. The focus is about illness, where humans are looked down upon as lacking. The human value and meaning of the individual's experiences becomes the victim of science reductionism. When a human and their experiences are reduced to mere chemicals, and when one is vulnerable and impressionable at a such a low point, one is at the mercy of the doctor who creates a devastating experience using the illness/disempowerment model. This is not a thing of the past, it is current.

In its place as a tool, and using actual science and when not misconstruing speculation as fact, psychiatry is very valuable.

I see what you are saying. However, I've been a victim of that very same system. It lead me down a horrible path. I wouldn't suspect anyone of doing it intentionally though. I think it's just an out-dated system. Many of these practitioners are probably ignorant about "recovery". By the way, I really dislike "recovery", it's totally misleading. Its implications are too varied. Something like self-image redevelopment might be more appropriate. It's not replacing pharmacology, it's adding to the current model and perhaps steering pharmacology in a more appropriate direction, where less drugs will be needed. The old system was a downward spiral, and I hope it eventually goes away. But I don't blame anyone and I measure people subjectively per case. If I don't like the way someone practices, I don't go to them. I don't know. It seemed like your thread was very negative towards psychiatry and it sounded kind of hypocritical to be doing to someone what you are blaming them for doing. That was the impression I got.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

And is it alright if they have a difference of opinion?

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.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

I see what you are saying. However, I've been a victim of that very same system. It lead me down a horrible path. I wouldn't suspect anyone of doing it intentionally though. I think it's just an out-dated system. Many of these practitioners are probably ignorant about "recovery". By the way, I really dislike "recovery", it's totally misleading. Its implications are too varied. Something like self-image redevelopment might be more appropriate. It's not replacing pharmacology, it's adding to the current model and perhaps steering pharmacology in a more appropriate direction, where less drugs will be needed. The old system was a downward spiral, and I hope it eventually goes away. But I don't blame anyone and I measure people subjectively per case. If I don't like the way someone practices, I don't go to them. I don't know. It seemed like your thread was very negative towards psychiatry and it sounded kind of hypocritical to be doing to someone what you are blaming them for doing. That was the impression I got.

I take full responsibility for highlighting the negative issues about psychiatry. I'm not fond of criticism models myself. However, on this subject I went with it for my own self-learning, and because people are really invested in the illness models. It begs challenging.

Again, I definitely don't blame anyone. We're all doing the best we can, and when we learn to do it otherwise, we do.... (badly misquoted Maya Angelou...or someone like that...)

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Byrnzie

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

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

catefrances

well why dont you tell us what a human is ryan?

Ahnimus

Byrnzie wrote:

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

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.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

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.

Ahnimus

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.