Anxiety and the Common Cold

Relating mental health physical health; anxiety is not the same as having a cold.

… but our current psychological/scientific mental health paradigm would make us believe that it is similar.

Fear and anxiety are often used somewhat interchangeably. Yet in that psychological literature, They are not the same. The influential existentialist psychologist Rollo May asks the question whether or not For a client right in front of us, that is as opposed to philosophical speculation, could we be able to discern in the client between their fear, and the anxiety that shows from it.

Fear is fear of something. Where as anxiety has no object.

In my other posts I talk about how popular discourse, popular culture, commandeers or usurps power from originary discourses, from basic meaning. I even put this phenomenon in terms of modernity. It is to identify the modern method to say that what is true becomes real. (Read Alain Badiou for an excellent rendering I have this motion.)

Such is the case with anxiety. We always hear and we talk about how I’m “anxious because..”. But that is not really a proper anxiety. I am anxious, really, Becuase I am feeling not becuase.

That is the irony. We want to address and solve our anxiety by finding a fundamental cause of it. The very human and logical method which would say that we need to find a cause of any effect, and then we can that’s address the effect. Very medical model. And indeed, ultimately, often enough really the only thing we can do to solve anxiety is take a Xanax or a Valium or smoke some weed, among other chemical solutions. But that is an entirely different discussion. It doesn’t so much as solve the anxiety as allow us a certain myopia. Well like I said, different discussion.

Similarly, There is a kind of therapeutic intervention or approach, called positive psychology, which views anxiety, and indeed all mental health issues, as having an object that we can address. If you can address and alter the object of the thing that’s getting in the way of mental health, then your mental health can become better.

I submit that this approach to mental health stems from a want for mental health to be the same as physical health, where I have a pain in my gut, I can point to my inflamed liver, for example.

And this is OK. All I’m really saying is we need to get more discerning about what we are really talking about when we talk about mental health. People who address mental health should be more particular and identifying as to what they are really addressing so far when they talk about or assume that there is this general human being who is having mental health issues and here they are going to propose a remedy for it. I feel it creates great confusion, and actually works to perpetuate problem more than it really works towards significant help. It might help some people, but it would probably help exponentially more people if people who are proposing to help around mental issues or more specific about who they’re actually addressing. That is, as opposed to merely saying that I am proposing a solution to “anxiety”.

I hope that resonates for you readers.

The more astute reckoning of anxiety understands that anxiety has no object. We generally put this in the sense of why is someone that would have anxiety when they’re just walking down the sidewalk. Sure, we could ask the person and the person could come up with a number of fears.And, we could say that this person is

Having anxiety because of their over concern with all sorts of various fears, then I’m going to be hit by a car, that a dog is going to run out and bite me, that I might step my toe, etc. And, we could say that this person is having anxiety because of their over concern with all sorts of various fears, then I’m going to be hit by a car, that a dog is going to run out and bite me, that I might step my toe, etc.

But then what we have as a person listing a series of fears. It doesn’t matter whether they are unfounded or founded, because indeed everyone lives their life under the umbrella of having to be concerned about the various contingencies that could arise out of nowhere.

The person suffering from this kind of anxiety cannot be said to be suffering because of their fears, because of their irrational fears, so to speak.

So it is that anxiety is not like the common cold. We definitely can point to various objects that manifest the cold itself and its symptoms. We can address the symptoms and help the main object of the cold itself to go away. We can even directly address the object of the cold through various types of supplements.

And yet in mental health, when we approach anxiety in this way, more often the anxiety persists, mutates, comes up with other reasons other fears.

Comment upon Talking to a Therapist

c

Matt Valdespino is—along with his twin, Greg—one of my oldest and best friends. When I first met the two of them, I honestly could not tell them …

Talking to a Therapist

—-
I started reading this post and I found out his friend is a clinical psychologist or PsyD and immediately my mind started naysaying. 😆.

You can search around my blog and find my opinions about psychology and psychiatry, if you want. 

I did read to the end, though, and ultimately, despite all the names, despite whether people really think that science is getting anywhere towards a better mental health, I like where the interview ended up.

I tell my clients and patients all the time that they should be curious about their situation, and curious about the therapist that they’re going to go see.

However, while I do tend to agree that people should be a little more proactive in their therapy, and tell Therapists what they want and need, I think they should be more curious in this regard into just asking questions about how their therapist views mental health, what they see or understand as the cause of suffering, how they view the idea of “mental illness”, questions like that. As an analogy, I dont goto my heart surgeon and tell them I need an Aortic Stent. I go in telling them that I think something is up with my heart and ask them about how they view the situation. (That analogy only goes so far, though.)

I agree that most people come into mental health kind of passively. Which is also good, Because part of the reason why many people are coming Is because they I have no idea what’s really going on. This is fine as well.

And, sure, a client can come in and say “this is what I need”. I’m not really sure if Therapist is doing anything beneficial for the client if that’s not one of the first things they find out from a client anyways.

Being Generally Educated can be a Problem in itself as to the question of help.

I think one of the problems about being a generally educated client, is that they feel that they can apply their advance grade education to their mental health as well, diagnose themselves, come in and tell her therapist exactly what they need from them.

.

Ok.

This indeed can be all good and well, if for no other reason than even Therapists need to make money, and so if They can provide a simple service as just for filling an order from a client, then so be it. Who knows, something else beneficial could happen that the client never thought of. The filling of the mental health order could be evidence of the mental health issue that the client is coming in for, and hasn’t realized it yet.

The client who comes in with that attitude might have missed the significance of the reason why they would feel that they have to come to therapy already. Which is to say, yes, that probably most people that come to therapy will be just mental health’s bread and butter, but the ones who actually have issues that need true tending (which is probably everyone) those are the reasons why we become therapists in the first place.

Yes, we feel a call to help people. The true question for therapy could be just exaclty what this help is.

Thanks Lotz!!xxx

Comment on “We’re all just different!” How Intersectionality is Being Colonized by White People

Working in student affairs on a university campus, I feel like I hear the words “intersectionality” or “intersectional” said out loud at least 20 …

“We’re all just different!” How Intersectionality is Being Colonized by White People

—- Aaaand my comment:

The nature of society as an imagined symbolic fantasy is to commandeer and distort for the sake of maintaing the known (real) universe.

Intersectionality, regardless of who puts forth the ‘original’ definition, is the indivisible remaider” where the imagined world coalesces around symbols.

All objects constitute points of origin and markings of relation to other objects. Intersectionality, as a reductionary descriptor for social relations, is a “weighted” object of social concern: It grants the symbol, as a point of deconstruction, or the fantasy, as a ‘vanishing point’ or ‘master signifier’ of the oppressing reality.

The True issue presented by this post is: Will we be permitted to see how our reckoning of change, itself is changed by the force of this argument that is imvolved in real social change?

Colonialization or Meme of Popular Cohesion

Colonization? Whiteness? These have become the vanishing mediators for the present existential motion. It is not necessarily that “white people” are commandeering what is otherwise authentic and particular to people of color; it is more that these terms have become the object around which reality presently or under certain circumstances manifests.

Recently there has been developing around race relations, critical race theory etc., the idea that there can be an ideology, for Black people, for example, that can be distinctly and totally separated from that of the white colonizer. Tommy Curry is one of these who tend to be idealistic about social relation and law.

While I definitely concur with the philosophical notion as it resonnates a similar notion that I have developed around the two routes, when applied in the social sphere, my question would be how are we even communicating this other ideological foundation if there isn’t an underlying ideological foundation through which the two cultures would be interacting?

I feel that Many critical and racial theorist and Philosopher’s are beginning to see through this kind of idealism. Yes, it’s a good discourse to get people to think about what’s actually occurring, but if you stand by that idealistic utopian version of the potential involved with being human, I hate to say it, what has happened is that you are trying to colonize social reality by saying that you know something more which arises outside of our ability to communicate. In this sense, Black people and people of color are just as much colonizers as white people. Indeed, the issue of “whiteness” is not so much about the color of one’s skin, but how individual human beings show up within a framework, themselves intersected by symbols and semantic fantasies in this sense, and Black people and people of color are just as much colonizers as white people. Indeed, As some critical race efforts will agree with, whiteness is some thing that we are all involved with in order to have any identity at all. 

Reality and the two routes

This really is the issue of the two routes that I talk about . With everything positioned in reality, there is some thing that withdraws from relation. but also, that content that withdraws arises in a condition through which communication does take place, perhaps in a different epistemological environment. This is to say, I might be drawing a polemic between ideology and epistemology. 

For, when we began to talk about what knowledge actually is, and if we agree that we are all human beings communicating with each other in some cents, then this idea that there is whiteness and blackness that are ultimately unreconcilable as a social feature, it’s really depending upon the same idealistic notion of a priori reason That realists, speculative or not, are pulling apart. If we want to call this “white Philosophy.” then that’s fine. However, I would offer the challenge of how one would communicate to anyone at all an alternative version of knowledge involved with the human being without at some point resorting to, again, some underlying “big reason”. And that’s my And other philosophers point; Namely, some thing with draws. Some thing tends to always be underneath, which Graham Harmon calls “undermining”, or something that is out of reach above us, what he calls “over mining”.  it seems that whiteness, blackness, and colonialization is an inherent part of being human in the modern world; and indeed, here we are dealing with it. It is not wrong, it is just the particular coordination of knowledge through which Real objects come into being an allow for idealized intersectionality. 

However, where I think my discussion of the two routes is significant, is the admitting that this is the case despite what we might want to argue. As I say, it is a true situation that doesn’t depend on what we argue about it. 

xf

Reposting of C.S.P. is Doing it again… Interview with Lance Cares

C.S.P. is Doing it again… Interview with Lance C.

https://lancek4.com/2017/12/07/c-s-p-is-doing-it-again-interview-with-lance-k/
— Read on lancek4.com/2017/12/07/c-s-p-is-doing-it-again-interview-with-lance-k/

—– Again and again. This is really good! Check it out. Philosophy in such vastness, it expends itself to leave itself as something that it is not.

By the way the original post I think was slightly wrong: you’ll be able to tell who is the interviewer (Jonesey). I think the interviewer is actually in italics, and then Lance is in plain text. But you’ll figure it out. 

Truly. Good shit.

the Modern Real Method

I keep coming back to what I see as a basic and fundamental issue in philosophy.

Why must we reference others to support the veracity of a proposal ?

I mean this in a de facto sense, not de jure. For, of course most modern philosophers we know of make implicit to thier argument the necessity for reference to other authors.

My question is: Why?

Why is Plato and Aristotle and whoever is ‘basic’ not required to reference for thier proposals to have veracity ? And yet no one currently is allowed to propose truths in the same way?

Why is no appeal to truth permitted to thought?

Any ideas?

“One doesn’t have to play well, it’s enough to play better than your opponent”*…

When less is, if not more, at least very amusing… 1D Chess is a fun, innovative chess variant played on a single row of 16 squares. Each player …

“One doesn’t have to play well, it’s enough to play better than your opponent”*…

“I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves… are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States,…

Today is Juneteenth. Though the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on September 22, 1862 (effective January 1, 1863), word was slow to spread.  …

“I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves… are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States,…

Normativity and critical race theory

apple.news/AAMsdATRIR9SSRpKGhegrZQ

 The renowned and infamous critical social theorist and Philosopher Slavoj Zizek Develops a notion somewhere in one of his books about the significant issue of reality in the context of philosophy is not simply change, but a change in how we are able to reckon what change is– and whether or not we can notice this kind of change.

This is all I’m gonna say right here about this post of this black person denouncing critical race theory.

I will let the reader Come upon the truth of this real development herself.

With one hint: What else supplies normalcy if it isn’t that which guides us to what is normal?

To Deconstruct the term “normal” to then say that the term does not identify anything that actually exists is merely to say that the term itself, ie normal, is identifying the very operation through which deconstruction is operating.