— I don’t know about all the political things, all the inns and outs.
However, I do feel that there is a basic difference between eastern views upon what a human being is in the world and the Western view.
i’m not sure where I stand. However, some of my posts have suggested that the climate is always changing. It has always been changing. Just because we are now aware that we are part of the universe, in so much as, perhaps, human beings as an ideology are now manifesting an “awareness” of ourselves in the universe, does not mean that suddenly we are affecting the universe such that the climate is changing evermore drastically due to us.
I suggest that the interaction is Less One Direction, less reciprocal, and more coincidental. And this is to say, behaving together.
The climate changes. Becuase the universe is always changing, and perhaps we are not separated from the universe sufficiently to effect it in the way that we like to think we do in the West.
now, if this is the way that eastern philosophies and ideologies inherently promote a human being relationship with the world and the universe, then the approach might be more of how do we deal with the climate that is changing. That is, more than the Western manner and view around the question of how do we change what we’re doing so the climate doesn’t change (now, as much).x
Philosophically speaking, there is a line of sense which understands that there is no common arena to which a philosophy is entirely addressable.
Following along this line, we can begin to understand that philosophy itself, as a name of some thing that arises in the world to knowledge, it’s not always what it proposes itself to be addressing.
Counseling and Mental Health
There are two, and only two ways that knowledge can be understood in the context of counseling.
— There is “mental health” which is the effort to get you back in line (conventional-ideological)…
— there is “mental health” which is coming to terms with who and what you are in the world (existential-philosophical).
Every theory about psychology, mentality, the psyche, thinking, etc. necessarily falls into one of those two categories.
Now, this is not a thought exercise to help anyone towards mental health. It is a statement about the epistemological foundations of what we understand to be mental health.
Usually, especially on blogs, when we tag with “ mental health” we are not talking about counseling, we are giving the regular person, whoever that may be, a “tip“ about how to be “mentally healthy”.
As people may find in my blog, the very idea of mental health is a questionable proposition. For sure, there are better and worse ways to go about anything, whether it is digging a hole, climbing a mountain, or showing up in the world. I think this is what we generally mean when we propose mental health tips, or strategies to have better mental health, positive thinking, things like that. And it’s good, and we have to start somewhere.
Counseling is not necessarily about mental health. Psychotherapy again is usually understood to be a method towards gaining better mental health, but we have to think about what we’re actually doing, both as a counselor and perhaps as a client if they wish to go there. For, what we are really running circles around is validating experience.
The Institution of Trauma
Being a counselor that comes from the standpoint that all mental health issues arise as a response of some sort of basic trauma, The way trauma is relieved and worked with is not to tell the client who is going through trauma that they just “need to get it together”.
I think this is the issue that I Address around mental health and counseling and psychology in general on this blog.
In particular, it is the issue that arises when a person comes into a therapist to get help with their mental health issue, and then the therapist approaches the problem as if something is wrong with the client. This happens by method, which is to say, from the standpoint of psychiatry or psychology. The method states implicitly that anyone coming in with a mental health issue that they want to solve, is necessarily problematic themselves as it is assumed that something is wrong with the client.
Then there is the middle ground, sort of, an irony, of those therapists that work from a theoretical foundation that we need to understand, empathize, and not judge the client.
I am reminded of a client I was talking to, not my own client, but someone who had been to psychotherapy for many years— she brought it up:
There is the fucked up implication that something is wrong with you at the same time the therapist is telling you out of their mouth that you are OK and there’s nothing really wrong with you. It’s like a deception, this person said. And I might add that where this is the case it is an institutionalized or an ideological mechanism that arises as a residuum even often with even most best therapeutic intention. Therapy is supposed to be about being honest, but the method is often based in a foundation of dishonesty.
I suppose the work of this blog is an attempt to recognize this residue and try to work with it. Attempt to try and get rid of it somehow or at least acknowledge that it is there.
— I just found this on a random search about what happens to dad when you die.
I was thinking about this because I have no one to give anything to, whether it be assets or deficits, when I die. So I was imagining that whatever debt I accrue will just get absorbed into the system. And I was pondering how many people die in this way, such that their debt just gets absorbed by no one in particular and everyone in general?
It is interesting to me that the link that I found says that it’s “scary” that so many people will die owing a lot of money.
And I thought what a strange and somehow dangerous propaganda that kind of view supports and propagates.
Why is it scary?
Thinking about it, I think it’s scary because if you really consider what it means to die with debt that everyone gets to absorb as a society, it means that Debt doesn’t really mean very much. For a person to die with debt that no one owes or no one will be obligated to pay, calls into question the very idea of an obligation to pay debt.
And this is scary. Because our system is based in a deep kind of faith that there is some universal obligation to pay debt. Indeed it’s written into our lives, but in America anymore you can’t go to jail for not paying your debts. The only thing that happens is your credit score goes down. Or you end up homeless. And then that’s not great for Society. either because then what’s happening is everyone’s paying a ridiculous amount of money for me to live. Whether it’s that I am absorbing money for social programs, or I’m causing some sort of social issue, such that “regular people” get to deny the actuality of their existence by denying the reality of my homeless, credit list, moneyless situation. ￼￼￼￼etcetera.
What is this world religion that we are involved with? ￼
As anyone who has even worked in a hospital knows, hospitals are actually waste generation facilities that help people as a nice by-product.
Medicine for profit amounts to waste. The money that is made from illness is not made from the caring for or healing of the sick; on the contrary, the money is made through the generation of waste. I’m a very non-Marxist manner, profit is the collection of wasted product generated by the exploitation of the fear that accompanies sick people.
Like many of us, I’ve been thinking about the situation in Afghanistan.
I’m trying to think of a solution. Rather, I think about what a screwed up situation that is. I try to wrap my head around people who are part of the Taliban. And I try to wrap my head around people that can’t be themselves because the Taliban will kill them or kill their families or hurt them or some other nonsense.
It dawned on me that I’ve never heard of an Afghanistan gang. I mean, the Taliban could be understood as a gang, but I was thinking more like the mob, like organized crime.
It seems to me that in the west, and in America, when there’s a problem with the government then people get together and they form gangs. And these gangs, never minding the ethical questions that might come with them (is there an ethical question when your government is an oppressive religious organization ?) generally speaking, they are the formation of people who feel that the government is doing them wrong. So they just decided to do things their own way.
I’m wondering if there’s some thing about that area of the world that prevents them from having gangs that are not associated with a religion. Gangs of people whose sole purpose is to try to be happy. To try to make a better world for themselves but for the future more so.
Just a thought. And probably an oversimplified one.
It’s just interesting to me. There are no gangs in Afghanistan, no political movements that aren’t already caught up in large governmental issues.
It appears that our government can’t understand that human beings move around. Everyone is supposed to stay in their country. No one is supposed to want to move anywhere. We need to come up with a policy about how to manage migration.
I can’t wait to get my bionic arm, legs and my bionic eye ￼!
It is interesting in this post of this breakthrough that the statements, at least from this article, the communication that they get from the person is just about as rudimentary as the beginning of writing itself, it seems.
They weren’t able to glean from his brain, for example, the contemplation of existence is emotional ambivalence. They glean from his brain the most basic and rudimentary communication there is for humans. When you think about writing itself, they weren’t busting out Democraten profundities about the nature of the universe. On the contrary, they were saying I have five oxen over here and 3 bushels of rye. ￼￼￼￼￼￼
Got to start somewhere.￼
And what an amazing blessing that this science offers to those a couple generations out.￼
Still, I am just glad that I will be way far gone by the time this stuff takes off.
For those who may not know, trauma informed approach to mental issues understands that such issues are the individual’s natural response to traumatic events in the person’s life.
Whether it be a single traumatic event, like an act of violence or natural disaster, a series of events, such as abuse, or “a thousand bee stings” over an extended period of time. The response to trauma is the same. Mental health issues arise due to life trauma.
The reason why this is important is because hardly anyone knows this outside of the mental health helpers.
Below is a part of a first-person typical example of an extreme case of a person encountering systemic bias and stigma, which I am sure most everyone adheres to, even as they would rather behave better:
From “ExperiencingPsychosis” 2012 published by Routledge. used without permission.
Unfortunately, I fear this is still not an atypical example. I would say that probably most people who experience any form of acute mental issue, whether it be depressed suicidality to schizophrenia , are met in the general clinical setting with a sincere while good intentioned bias that functions to invalidate, as a category, the actuality of the mental health situation.
Just a thought.
How have you viewed someone you have encountered with a mental issue?