The Philosophical Project Concerning the Mental Health.

I recently submitted a paper to an academic journal.

It was denied. Bummer!

It uses, I might call, a three-stage, blind review board who reads and assess the papers, who then recommend the paper, yay or nay. They also provide comments as to why they rejected the paper, which I truly appreciated and take to heart.

I found these review comments interesting and an opportunity for growth in my writing, but also personal growth. I see these areas as connected, and after sitting with the comments behind the rejection, I found that they are more than connected. I found that they necessitate a sort of fidelity to the meaning of my paper that still makes me wonder about the method and ideals those involved with the sorting process hold.

I spent about a couple weeks rolling around the feedback from the journal and the various activities that were aroused in myself to it. I did not want to react in a knee-jerk; as a mental health practitioner, and growing writer, I know the value of process, of tuning into myself and allowing the natural reactions, mental, intellectual, physical, but also philosophical and spiritual, to do their things. The rising of unknown or unrecognizable forces within one’s Self often compel us to activity without reason, yet while informing the motion of our reason, albeit, without a full recognition of the irrational forces that are compelling us, that is, as though I have thought it out rationally. So, I wanted to let those waves roll as they would, watching them, thinking the thoughts, feeling the feelings, working through the methodological rebuttals and letting them go to let other ones comes up, the same, different, challenging, agreeing, random, etcetera.

TRUE PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCE and ITS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE REALITY of MENTAL ISSUE

The question that keeps coming up for me is the central question to Jean-Francois Lyotard’s The Differend; I paraphrase:

What justice might be had from a court who is not able to understand the case brought to them, not able to comprehend the evidence nor hear the argument?

The Differend. 1983

Now, the significance of my pervious post is that in this blog I will be moving past the strict conventional philosophical involvements, what I call real in the last post, to philosophy of mental health, what I associate with truth.

THE TRUTH is IN THERE

I do this because of the limitations that are exhibited in the attempt to engage philosophically at the level of truth on the general stage (see my posts, papers and books). Basically, there is no truth to be found ‘out there’. What is ‘out there’ is always real and negotiated as such. The truth of that situation is only found by not referring to ‘reality’ for substantial information about what is actually occurring, and this, thus, cannot be argued in the conventional domain. It must be sought within the domain of the Self. The effort of mental health thus falls into the issue of where I am seeking my Self.

Of course, this is not to suggest that one merely rely upon some ‘inner resource’ such as a ‘spirit’, or ‘mind’, or even ‘rationality’ as opposed or in contrast to what is ‘out there’ in the sense of an objective reality. It is these kinds of polemical and ideological mental postures that I say contributes to the mental issue as a matter for course. this is why it is possible to have such philosophical discourses that we find involving all sorts of psychological ideas, from Fromm, to Lacan, to Zizek. So I say that psychology is not dealing with problems outside of the problems it creates. But again; you can read my works about all that.

Interestingly, I recently read this paper which makes the distinction that I have noticed as well. Cedric Nathaniel, in his small book series, The Philosophical Hack, notices this difference in approach to what is occurring and claims philosophy to involvement. I feel that Maylynne contextualizes her ‘sage’ as what Nathaniel sees as ‘involvement’. Yet, in her proposal, philosophy is specifically oriented with ‘the socratic’, meaning, that it is based in (to paraphrase) a name of an activity specifically oriented ‘a rational questioning of the subject’.

I am writing a paper in response to hers which coincides with the new trajectory of my blog. I offer a big Thank You to Maylynne !

Her paper here.

PHILOSOPHY AND MENTAL HEALTH

I contend that most mental health issues arise because of the individual “missing” themselves. They do not understand what is happening to them and or they are unable to enact the person they think they are effectively. This disconnect in how a person understands themselves manifests as what we know as the ‘mental disorders’ but also just general mental issue.

This does not mean, however, that mental issues are caused by an intellectual farting, if you will, as though the person just needs to be corrected in how they are thinking, through a sort of cognitive formula. Of course, though, some people will be helped through applying a cognitive formula; we know this in the mental health field as cognitive skills. My discussion here is not about the semantic and pragmatic issues around any psychological intervention or theory. And again: you can look to my older posts and papers if you want to get a feeling about what is going on there.

MOVING FORWARD

This phase of my blog will be formed as a hub, of sorts, for papers and other media, to organize and grant an epistemological and philosophical structure that addresses mental health in a manner through which conventional philosophical approaches, underpinnings and manners of understanding mental health lack or otherwise avoid for the sake of psychological adherence and coherence.

I hope you will be down for the ride. Please link this blog to you own, and offer it to others as you might find similar or complementary interests in your travels.

The Veritable Counsel

We are generally afraid of talking, let alone thinking, about truth. I think this is due to the terrible things that humans beings do under the name of truth. Truth is associated with narrow-mindedness and intellectual myopia, as well as authoritarianism and religion.

Well, I seek to disrupt those automatic associations, to help with an understanding truth in the context of truth itself, as opposed to what we are justifiably afraid of in real understanding and activity.

The Real Condition, or The True Condition of Reality

I was reading this part from a book:

Sorry, it is sideways
(from THE ACT WORKBOOK, used without permission)

What caught my attention was “…experts in the field of emotion…”

🤔

I am reminded of the seminal paper by Jean-Francois Lyotard call The Post Modern Condition:

The Postmodern Condition

As well, now, the foundational infamous Danish philosopher Soren Kiekerkegaard comes to mind; particularly…

To where is everyone going so fast ?

It is possible to understand philosophy as a name of an involvement with knowledge. In this way, bringing these authors to bear upon philosophy, we can understand that either a person is moving so fast in their effort to get somewhere (who knows where, though) that they forget or mistake their effort as concerning something that is not knowledge, or, the person understands that knowledge is the only thing that is being handled.

The irony here is that this situation is not merely philosophical.

This is to indicate what is happening in our knowing of it, and in fact, in our knowing of anything at all. Two mutually exclusive, non-philopsohical, operations arise in knowing:

  • It is real
  • It is true

On one hand, there are those who will read this far with a fair assumption that they are reading a philosophical post, will already be engaged with it under a certain notion of what is happening and in a way ‘ride upon’ that notion in order to engage with the post or not engage. That is, usually, they will think that this post requires of them to engage in a certain way, and so will be interested or not. If they are not, it is likely that they are not really into thinking this way, that is, philosophically. This is what I generalize as the real philosophical issue: philosophy is just another topic that people will be interested in or not, and within the philosophy understood in this way, there are other philosophical topics that again, people will be interested in or not.

Nonetheless, to the extent that people see this as a real philosophical issue, which then compels them to engage or not and despite what they see as their choices, there we have the true philosophical issue: the issue of the human being involved with knowing.

The truth of the real philosophical issue has to do with how to be a human being has a proper modern identity. Such a person must really be on their toes, for, their goal is to out run and out do everyone else. They must constantly live worried about what everyone else will say or do, because they must get there first, anticipate other peoples activity to make sure they get there first. They must know more than anyone else, and interaction with others are the occasions to be their identity, that is, likely not truly themselves, but just a person in reality. They must use technology better, and they must outdo nature.

They thus concern themselves with being what they are not: they must be experts in themselves with regard to what others are in reality. There is only so much food: I gotta get mine. I want to be the best business executive: I have to know more than the other person, look better, perform better. I want people to be educated and healthy: I must make sure I know what Im doing so I can be viewed as someone who is able to help with those things, so people will come to me for those things. I want to live in peace: I must protect what is mine and be keen on what someone else might do to take from me what is mine. This is what the human being does and must to in reality, and to rebut this is simply to be engaging in this very activity. It is not necessarily wrong; it is simply what we do, have done for as long as we can understand what is human, and it is what we will do in the same way, again, as long as we understand the human being as such.

Lyotard describes this real situation as the Postmodern Condition , and I think it still holds; his report is a report on knowledge, not really a treatise about what ought to be done to correct it (of course, he is obligated to imply an ethical response to it, but that is a real philosophical issue; see my other posts.) To say it is “post-modern”, though, opens things up for his proposal to be something other that what it is, something that it is not, to be something else, like realist, or structuralist. See, though, that these names stake their claims in reality, and in anticipation of people staking their ideological claims to identity, in the same way that Lyotard, by his paper, was/is understood to be making a real philosophical claim. Ironically, this activity is to what Lyotard refers the Expert of Technology: everyone attempting to gain justice for themselves by outdoing everyone else. Thinking better; thinking differently, and so on.

While it comes out of the title of the paper to make a real philosophical claim, when we understand what he is saying, it is more that he is describing the situation for what it is, and that every rebuttal and proposal, at once, falls into the description (of the postmodern condition), while then adhering to its claim, suggests that it is moving beyond it to be something else. By virtue of this real condition, it is near a non sequitur not to see this condition as true. This is to say, the only escape from it is made by using the method that the condition describes, which shows that this condition never changes. I call this condition, thus, real. It is the description of the reality of knowing.

Justice

Then, be extension, I feel like something is wrong in this realization of the reality that I am involved with. Somehow, once I see it, I am not able to gain a sense of Justice in my having to be involved with reality. I try and try, but something is always lacking, and I just can’t figure it out. So what do I do?

The Beginning of Knowing As Such

The example of that excerpt above is a usual description of what science gives us; an assertion which seems like it is giving us something definite and precise, yet upon scrutiny, it is vague and means very little. We look at scientific proposals and we like how it appears, we like how it makes us feel, like that we can be sure of what we are talking about, like we know something. It gives me a feeling that what I am doing and saying is justified. It is real and part of the knowing of what is real.

However, to again doubt and rebut, to resort to thinking by our fear, as though I am suggesting science is “not true” is a real issue, not the true issue. Of course science and is findings and proposals are real, and true in their reality. However, to make further assumptions and statements beyond this fall squarely into real philosophical issues, real philosophical material of ethical dimensions.

What I do from there is the true philosophical issue.

More in a bit…

ReAwaken America Tour and Intelligent Ethics

ReAwaken America Tour – Wikipedia
— Read on en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReAwaken_America_Tour

ReAwaken America Tour – The ThriveTime Show
— Read on www.thrivetimeshow.com/reawaken-america-tour/

The Irony of Intelligence.

Human intelligence is not a given. Many humans are not intelligent. Belief is about ideological content, not intelligence.

We typically grant human beings with thought. I feel we also naturally extend intelligence to thinking, and then further that human intelligence is something better or higher than say, the thinking that an intelligent dog might do, or an intelligence of a tree, or a weather front.

I am not so sure that the category of human defines a consistent space of intelligence and thinking in all cases.

This is not to say that someone is not human if they think differently or exhibit, some sort of intelligence that I don’t agree with. But I am suggesting that human beings, if we hold the category,  move in a certain way. I might even go so far as to say that ethics defines intelligence. An ethics that defines an intelligent human being is one that allows people or accounts for people in the context that they can think whatever they want so long as how they act or behave, does not interfere with what someone else might think or say or behave. This with the qualifier, I imagine, that the person who is being impinged upon does not like it.

Then I would imagine that we must define this intelligent ethics within a system, that weighs what people think, but ultimately believe.

I might further move to suggest that when people assert what they believe, what they are doing is asserting a certain organization of ideological content. But not only that, and as much as they assert what they believe, as something essential to the human being, they thereby are not being ethically intelligent.

Indeed, they are being true to thier faith, and could be there by said to be intelligent, in the sense that they are able to decide what ideological content they want to adhere to as well as that they organize it in such a way, however, they are not being intelligent so far as ethics must extend out to all of the human creature.

In order for this to be sound, we would thereby have to mark a point at which human epistemological relativity ends, which is to say, the point at with ethics does not become merely an ideological organization, but rather to decide what basic category that we are going to use intelligently.

 I think it is this kind of demarcation of ethics that everyone in our modern day is afraid of. Because they look back to the 20th century, and they see the world wars, and all that dictatorship and violence and political nonsense by power mongers, and they listen when they read this post that I’m posting, and what I’m saying, and it reminds them of these terrible atrocities in these basically crazy people, and crazy groups of people, and they say “whoa, no, you’re being unethical”.

Yet, I would say that that reaction, that fear, is not based in an intelligent ethics, but is rather based in a particular selection and organization of ideological material.

Thoughts??

👽
x

Rp Insects can have similar effects on atmospheric electricity as weather events, say researchers

Image credit: beeculture.com Even a world-famous naturalist was baffled by the ‘aeronaut spiders’ appearing from nowhere on his ocean-going ship. …

Insects can have similar effects on atmospheric electricity as weather events, say researchers
The Chrysalis

"For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern" -- William Blake

Note To My White Self

The reflections of a white man confronting his personal privilege and racism.

The Orthosphere

Wherever an altar is found, there civilization exists - Joseph de Maistre

Object Relations

"A Word of Substance"

Random thoughts

Random musings about everything.

Wise & Shine

A community for writers & readers

A New Vision for Mental Health

New and interesting things are happening in mental healthcare – find out about them here and help shape a new vision for mental health

Mental Health 101

Author/Writer @ Thought Catalog, LiberoMagazine, Invisible illness&TotallyADD peer supporter trainee I blog to bring awareness to mental health issues

Secrets of Mental Health

The Choice is Yours!

RTS -Mental health

Facing The Challenges of Mental Health

Spo-Reflections

To live is to battle with trolls in the vaults of heart and brain. To write; this is to sit in judgment over one's Self. Henrik Ibsen

Mind Beauty Simplicity

living with less gave me more to live for

Olivia Lucie Blake

Musings of a Millennial. Life, The World and Everything In Between.

Damon Ashworth Psychology

Clinical Psychologist

Mental Health @ Home

A safe place to talk openly about mental health & illness

The Absurd

piles of dog-eared books, fountain pens, poetry, romance and despair, existential crisis, anarchy, rebellion

THE HIDDEN SOUL

Want some motivation,this is the place

Bio-Blogger

Bio-Blogger is an excellent source for collaborations and to explore your businesses & talents.

Wibble

Just another glitch in the matrix

Filosofa's Word

Cogito Ergo Sum

Climate of Sophistry

Climate science is sophistry...i.e., BS.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

a joyful life

happiness joy love kindness peace

The Twisting Tail

the world turns on a word

Mytika Speak

Where Logic and Feeling Unite

Notes from Camelid Country

A travel blog from Bolivia to Belgium via Berlin

Heroes Not Zombies

becoming not being.......

Emotional Shadows

where all emotions are cared for!

Soulsoothinsounds's Blog

For those awakening divine humans

Peacock Poetry

by Sam Allen

Union Homestead

An urban homesteading family move to the country; still a story of trial and error...a lot of error!

The adopted ones blog

Two adoptees - one vocal the other not so much...

Conversations on finding and loving who I am

Let's have an open conversation about life.

ThoughtsnLifeBlog

Change your thoughts and transform your life

Tips from Sharvi

Tips to make your daily life easier!

mulyale mutisya

what the eyes have seen, ears have heard, being has experienced and what the Spirit has felt.

TheCommonAtheist

One minute info blogs escaping the faith trap

beetleypete

The musings of a Londoner, now living in Norfolk

radhikasreflection

Everyday musings ....Life as I see it.......my space, my reflections and thoughts !!

THE SPECTACLED BEAN

Tales, Thoughts + Tribulations of a Free Spirit in Suburbia