–from “Re-visioning psychology￼” by James Hillman.
The modern idea of ownership permeates into every thing that we think. This preoccupation with one’s “owned” ideas manifests world as some thing to be or to have as owned. Hence we have the eternal problem for the modern individual which shows up in one instance as rational subjective opinion in a world of argued relative opinions, and in another instance as mental illness. We might even begin to discern what mental health is by understanding how it seeks to commandeer the problematic modern individual￼￼￼￼￼ which is — by the plain evidence of all the problem it vomits everywhere by simply being itself — ideologically and institutionally mentally ill, by placing it in a “positive spin”. For I think the most salient and pertinent issue of philosophy and not only psychology is: What exactly is mental health?
We tend to ignore this question as well as ignore the absurdity involved in the object of mental health by trying to reduce it to some physical state of brain or some organizational state of some “pure” mind, by trying to bring about various conceptual apparatuses￼, or simply talking about “ways” or practices that we can do to thus be mentally healthy by the doing of them. But none of these ever really tells us what mental health is except maybe a sort of stillborn fetus of modern science to poke and prod at.
And the people who are really suffering are the ones who mostly get to remain in a state of suffering￼ overall.
Why do we continue to remain so myopic towards a problem which doesn’t seem to be responding very well to these narrow idealistic methods? ￼
But this is not really to make any sort of criticism against processes, interventions, and other efforts to help; for sure, we have to try.
￼￼ Here, we are taking on the interface or relationship between psychology, activity, and philosophy. ￼
￼The most pertinent philosophical discussion of modernity￼￼ in this regard was made by￼ Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari in their book “capitalism in schizophrenia”, but indeed their work is saturated with the attempt to come into a plural solution to the problem of the singular self. ￼
The issue, though, that we find permeating philosophy, or what I call conventional philosophy, can be viewed through the adjective pronoun “we”; for, what those philosophers pronounce in their philosophical works, in their psychoanalysis in one sense, is exactly “not” we, but indeed that group of people which is only able to understand humanity as a generalized and common, modern, “we”: Meaning, not the We that arises as world to form the contours of self, but indeed the modern We which is the presumed isolated self within a world of individual isolated selves “out there￼”￼, huddling in cold groups, ￼￼and indeed only of beings associated with the category that we call human. The We doesn’t think of the We which involves rock formations, buildings and quarks. Anything that lives outside of this, what I call, religious and theological designation, we label and denote as ethically inferior and or in need of correction due to its epistemologically implicit error of cognition.
We might then ponder what indeed the idea of correction is manifesting around in this regard. ￼What is this idealistic calcification attempting to protect?
I’ll stop there. ￼￼￼￼