Science Without a Soul

angelica · October 2007

OutOfBreath wrote:

Perhaps. But this clip paints an over-ominous picture if you ask me. I'll concede several of the points, but the one-sided mode of presentation of evil men out to destroy humanity or something turns me off. I wasn't too impressed with fahrenheit 911 either.

As does medicine, as does all science. And it is a great help in many cases. The error is assuming that's all there is, and that science at any points posess the full and complete truth.

This clip did not present any kind of "fair view" as far as I can tell. Not a single opposing voice were heard, ominous music and voice-over and an extremely one-sided view of some of the sides of psychiatry, made out to represent all of psychiatry.

I am all for critique of psychology and psychiatry, particularly the history there-in. However, presenting it as money-out-the-window, doesn't cure or help anything run by evil men that are denouncing god.. Well, theat's a major turn-off. This is propaganda, and that never looks pretty no matter who tells it or for what reason.

Peace
Dan

I agree it presents an ominous picture.....

I agree we make a huge error by believing science is all there is. This is a huge issue. It's rampant on many levels, at great cost. Here I am addressing the psychiatric level alone.

I'm not fond of the drama of this type of thing or farenheit 911 either. However that is about presentation. The points have a truth to them. In both presentations.

You and I have different ideas of a fair view. For me, for any "side" to present itself and itself only is 100% fair and accurate in that context. It's obvious it's not the whole picture, and yet it's still valid for me. I understand if it's not for you.

angelica · October 2007

soulsinging wrote:

positive recovery then. whatever you want to call it. bottom line is the point still stands. your way is not the only way and adopting the stance that you know the only and best way to treat all mental illness and everyone should adhere to it and anyone suggesting any other treatments is wrong is utterly ludicrous. all the poster said was that just becos it worked for you does not mean it will work for everyone or that it should be the sole treatment used. just one of many.

That's not what the poster said.

It's apparent that you either don't read what I say, or that you don't comprehend what I am saying.

soulsinging · October 2007

angelica wrote:

That's not what the poster said.

It's apparent that you either don't read what I say, or that you don't comprehend what I am saying.

it is exactly what she said, as per the sentence you quoted twice. she said it is dangerous to assume that just becos it worked for you it will work for everyone and should be advocated on that grounds. perhaps her writing wasn't as clear as it could be, but i think her intent is quite clear to anyone without an agenda or built-in defensiveness about their pet theory. perhaps she did not comprehend what you were saying and you weren't advocating such a position.

angelica · October 2007

soulsinging wrote:

it is exactly what she said, as per the sentence you quoted twice. she said it is dangerous to assume that just becos it worked for you it will work for everyone and should be advocated on that grounds. perhaps her writing wasn't as clear as it could be, but i think her intent is quite clear to anyone without an agenda or built-in defensiveness about their pet theory. perhaps she did not comprehend what you were saying and you weren't advocating such a position.

You have misconstrued what I have said. I have no desire to debate your straw man arguments.

If MahoganySoul would like to discuss what she said, I'm open to that.

Peace.

OutOfBreath · October 2007

angelica wrote:

I agree it presents an ominous picture.....

I agree we make a huge error by believing science is all there is. This is a huge issue. It's rampant on many levels, at great cost. Here I am addressing the psychiatric level alone.

I'm not fond of the drama of this type of thing or farenheit 911 either. However that is about presentation. The points have a truth to them. In both presentations.

You and I have different ideas of a fair view. For me, for any "side" to present itself and itself only is 100% fair and accurate in that context. It's obvious it's not the whole picture, and yet it's still valid for me. I understand if it's not for you.

I would say this is a view, it's not at all fair in any meaning of the word. Representative of some people's views, yes.

Peace
Dan

angelica · October 2007

catefrances wrote:

what if that potential is being reached without recovery. what if the 'patient' believes that to be 'cured' of their illness means to lose their gift.

Another way I see this is that I always have the "gift" of what has been labelled "bi-polar disorder"--the mystical experiences, and supposed "creative gifts". Recovery for me does not include losing that. Myself and others consider recovery being embracing that.

Again, the bottom line for me is what works for the individual given that stage in their life. Every point of my journey has been valid and appropriate. That includes when I believed I was chemically imbalanced and would be for life, and embraced meds and treatment, or when I was having high mystical experiences, which included that I was falling out from my acceptance of the social norms I was surrounded by with family, etc. Or when I'd sit in my basement with my boyfriend, telling the horrors of my life, because finally someone would listen, and I came across like the woman from the movie "The Witches Of Eastwick", who was vomiting cherry stones--I was spewing the evil I'd internalized in my life, and was experiencing a metaphorical exorcism, barely short of head-spinning.

angelica · October 2007

OutOfBreath wrote:

I would say this is a view, it's not at all fair in any meaning of the word. Representative of some people's views, yes.

Peace
Dan

I agree it is "a" view.

I think any view is fair within itself.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun · October 2007

My brother was doped up on pills from psychiatrists for awhile. My mom finally decided it was all bullshit and got him off them, and now he's fine (before he was just kind of off in space).

IMO Its a bullshit industry.

soulsinging · October 2007

angelica wrote:

You have misconstrued what I have said. I have no desire to debate your straw man arguments.

If MahoganySoul would like to discuss what she said, I'm open to that.

Peace.

:rolleyes: the straw man is the best thing ever to have happened to you... it allows you to dodge any point you don't feel like discussing.

there is nothing straw man in my statement. all i was doing was explaining what she seemed to be saying, as it seemed you didnt understand. if a straw man was being created, it was by her.

angelica · October 2007

soulsinging wrote:

:rolleyes: the straw man is the best thing ever to have happened to you... it allows you to dodge any point you don't feel like discussing.

there is nothing straw man in my statement. all i was doing was explaining what she seemed to be saying, as it seemed you didnt understand. if a straw man was being created, it was by her.

The straw man helps me understand what is happening when people are misconstruing my points and inventing illogical arguments on my behalf that are diametrically opposed to what I actually keep stating over and over. Again, these false beliefs are known as "delusional", meaning a false belief given the evidence to the contrary.

angelica · October 2007

MrSmith wrote:

My brother was doped up on pills from psychiatrists for awhile. My mom finally decided it was all bullshit and got him off them, and now he's fine (before he was just kind of off in space).

IMO Its a bullshit industry.

Good for your mom. Thankfully, things turned out well for your brother.

soulsinging · October 2007

angelica wrote:

The straw man helps me understand what is happening when people are misconstruing my points and inventing illogical arguments on my behalf that are diametrically opposed to what I actually keep stating over and over. Again, these false beliefs are known as "delusional", meaning a false belief given the evidence to the contrary.

so how does my explaining to you what she said count as me misconstruing your points?

angelica · October 2007

soulsinging wrote:

so how does my explaining to you what she said count as me misconstruing your points?

Your inaccurate interpretation of what I said is what misconstrues my points.

"adopting the stance that you know the only and best way to treat all mental illness and everyone should adhere to it and anyone suggesting any other treatments is wrong"~soulsinging

soulsinging · October 2007

angelica wrote:

Your inaccurate interpretation of what I said is what misconstrues my points.

"adopting the stance that you know the only and best way to treat all mental illness and everyone should adhere to it and anyone suggesting any other treatments is wrong"~soulsinging

i was explaining her post, not offering any comment on your views. seems to me that's the impression she got, thus her post... she seemed to think you were saying your way is the best and she was saying it's dangerous to think that just becos it worked for you it is the best for everyone. i don't know or care what you were actually saying, only explaining why she wrote what she did and what she meant by it, which you questioned.

catefrances · October 2007

PJPOWER wrote:

Yes, we should take the life-saving medications away from the epileptic person. While we're at it, we should probably stop alzhiemers research because I would hate to take that human experience away from people. And when a person has a stroke, cutting off the oxygen and blood supply to a particular part of the brain (lack of blood flow is actually the cause of many problems in the brain) we should probably just recognize that this is just the way the brain is supposed to work. Oh, and the research showing that many of the murderers, rapists, child abusers have problems with their prefrontal cortex should be haulted because the option of medicating those individuals is actually just a way of making them less human................All those in favor, say "I"!

not sure if this is in response to my posts. but if it is....i never said that should be the case.

catefrances · October 2007

angelica wrote:

Oh, I apologize.

I'm not exactly sure I'm understanding. I'll see how this goes, and you can tell me if I'm answering what you're asking....

I support people doing what is right for them. I support them if they choose to not take meds if it alters their thinking too much or if it affects their 'talent'. My mother, a creative musician/songwriter, made this choice when I was a young girl. She was psychiatrically hospitalized and given meds. She went off her meds because they disrupted her thinking. The consequence of her choice is that I was raised by a mentally ill mother, through episodic periods of delusions and hallucinations interspersed between her having periods of awesome parenting, etc. Granted, there were many much better options/choices available that were not looked into at that time, which predisposed myself and my family to much further psychiatric problems for generations. This was a chain I indended to break and have done for myself, and my children.

I have been psychiatrically hospitalized two times against my will. I've also participated--well, led, actually, having my brother psychiatrically hospitalized against his will. I was with my daughter and her psychologist as she was "committed"-- hospitalized against her will. Where I draw the line with choice, personally and professionally, is if a person poses a danger to themselves or to others. Then I support alternative methods, such as involuntary ones. I'm not overly thrilled with this, but I don't see other options at this time, even though I'm certainly open to them. Given I've been dramatically affected by mental illness from so many angles, I take these choices very seriously.

thats it exactly angelica. and i agree.

i had someone say to me that i should be 'on' something. i looked at her like she'd just driven a blade through my guts. having known this person for over 20 years, i was horrified that they would suggest such a thing to me.

angelica · October 2007

catefrances wrote:

thats it exactly angelica. and i agree.

i had someone say to me that i should be 'on' something. i looked at her like she'd just driven a blade through my guts. having known this person for over 20 years, i was horrified that they would suggest such a thing to me.

I can defnitely understand that.

MahoganySouls · October 2007

I did indeed mean that advocating non treatment of mental illness is dangerous.

Mental illness is an ever changing disease. A person goes through cycles. These many times offer a state of "honeymoon" in which the patient seems "cured" of their illness. When in fact, the negative effects of the brain dysfunction are merely on hiatus or under control at the moment. This can be for hours, days, months or even years. Only to resurface again at a later time.

Definitely some mental illness can soley be attributed to negative life experience. IE: the trauma of rape. The victim is thrown into a catasrophic mental event in which they experience irrational thinking, fears or breakdowns. These can definitely be "recovered" from with proper treatment be it medicinal or theraputic.

However, what still remains are those patients who have a clinical or pathological basis for their mental illness. IE: chemical imbalance, trauma or misdirected electrofunction in the brain. These persons cannot "recover" in a traditional sense unless treated via a medicinal route. One example of this being scizophrenia. A person diagnosed with this condition is not capable of separating logic from irrational thought. Everything they experience is very real to them.

The question of erraticating their "gifts" is a very valid one that does need to be addressed. It is known that persons with a mental illness tend to be highly creative. We see this with the lunacy associated with artists, musicians and poets over the centuries. Would they have been as "talented" had they been medicated?

So there in lays the challenge to treat the illness with balance. Allowing the individual personality to shine through while still keeping the illness at bay. Again, this is where the newness of Psychology errs. Trial and error are a natural process to learning about any disease.

Again, I question you Angelica as to why you would put any less emphasis on a disease of the brain than you would say a disease of the heart, kidney or any other organ?

MahoganySouls · October 2007

catefrances wrote:

thats it exactly angelica. and i agree.

i had someone say to me that i should be 'on' something. i looked at her like she'd just driven a blade through my guts. having known this person for over 20 years, i was horrified that they would suggest such a thing to me.

Sometimes only true friends can say the most difficult of things. Love means taking the path less traveled. I would thank her for caring enough to see and express that you were struggling in some way.

MahoganySouls · October 2007

Regarding forced commitment (hospitalization), these are not done without grounded reasons. They are only used when a person is a danger to themselves or others. Unfortunately, the patient is not able to see this in themselves.

Science Without a Soul

Comments

Categories