Reposting How Psychedelics Could Help Cure Various Mental-Health Disorders | by Viktor Marchev

It’s amazing how psychedelics — from being initially known as the ‘party drugs’ and excessively being connected to the ‘underground’—are now seen as …

How Psychedelics Could Help Cure Various Mental-Health Disorders | by Viktor Marchev | ILLUMINATION | May, 2021

—- I am having a like/dislike relationship with the psychedelic frontier of treating mental disorders. Its not a Love/hate relationship, it is definitely a like/ dislike.

Let’s see if I can explain my ambiguity.

The psychedelic experience is so unlike any other experience someone can have, whether it be from introducing a chemical substance into one’s body or otherwise. , At its core, the psychedelic experience is a complete unanchoring of experience from what we generally understand as reality. But not only that, for, It seems to me that people who have not fully engaged with the potential of the psychedelic experience tend to reduce that experience to a real action. This is to say there is an incredible duplicity and large irony involved in the experience itself, and so to eliminate the incredulity which is inherent to the psychedelic experience, is to reduce the psychedelic experience to something that it is innately not part of. This activity somehow offends me deeply. This is a part of the “dislike” part of my attitude.

On the other hand, the “like” part of my attitude really stems from the fact that the insight which defies the very definition of what insight might be for mental health thereby compels me to understand that most people with mental health issues will not be able to comprehend such insight. So it is that I must acknowledge that there may be some sort of initial and profound help that can be gained through a scientific approach of using various psychedelic – in The loose sense of a group chemical compounds – in the effort for mental health. I am open to psychedelics potential for treating mental health issues.

However, there is another part of the “dislike” part of my attitude and it really Has to do, again, with the all too quick reduction to scientific empirical truth.

From a Pure philosophical perspective, it is possible to conceptualize the action of psychedelics on mental health as the opposite of what empirical science will Tell us. Philosophy addresses the foundations of what it is to exist, what it is to be and what it is to know. From a conflation of those standpoints it is just as likely that a transformation in my view upon the world would influence a neurochemical State.

My dislike tends to stem from an apprehension where we might transform the empirical neurochemistry and translate into an improvement of mental health in the sense that we would want to believe, as opposed to what is actually occurring. We might be all too ready to see statistical improvement as support for developing psychedelic compounds in the treatment of mental health yet more in the interest of money and big business, more in the interest of people who like to get high believing what science says to their support, rather than what is actually occurring for the person with the mental health issue.

Which is to say, a 30% improvement (whatever that might mean) upon mental health from the approach of empirical Science Might be selling short the potential for what psychedelics are actually capable of achieving for mental health, that is, approached from the other way, approached from the standpoint that a fundamental change in the way that we are viewing the world necessarily corresponds with the change in neurochemistry. A change in the way I view things might have 100% effect on my mental health in a Beneficial Way And might appear to alter my neurochemistry in whatever way, but to approach it from the neurochemical side — empiricism simply does not have the bandwidth, it’s simply does not have the bit depth. 

I am concerned that those who see a promise in psychedelics will be all too quick to side with compromise Because it makes them happy that The statistics seems to confirm what they believed was right. From my experience, the psychedelic experience is not about being right, it is about understanding. Hence my comment about insight. 

Nevertheless, in the same way that we legalized marijuana, it may be that we have to approach a psychedelic treatment for mental health similarly. This is to indicate that the reason why marijuana is legal today is not because science proved anything good about it. We wanted marijuana legal because we saw and see the benefit of marijuana in actual lives, and so we used whatever leverage we could get, whether it be religious, which actually came first, or science or history. But ultimately it is neither religion nor science nor history which has allowed us as a country at least to want to smoke weed legally. Science and religion are extraneous, even though for our purposes we have to pretend that they are primary. alcohol is not legal because any sort of benefit except that we like it. Translating this imperative to psychedelics moves along a slightly different trajectory, but categorically it is the same to the same. As I have said, we can treat mental health by trying to alleviate symptoms and think that we’re doing good. Ok. We probably are doing some good. But I feel that we are leaving out the more significant in a profound implications of psychedelics in mental Health by merely leaving it to “what helps”.

Hopefully this is just a sentiment and not what is actually occurring. 


… And I didn’t even mention the problem with “curing” mental illness. I’m just leaving that be for the benefit of doubt. And, you can look to my earlier post about that one.

The potential for a Myopia in the Positivist Notion of Mental Health

Don’t be a hater!!

If there is any statement to find positive psychology in general, it’s got to be this one.

Why do we have to focus on the problem? Let’s focus on the solution!!

Positive Psychology is the study of what makes life worth living.

Now, I am not saying that I hate positive psychology. I’m not even saying that it’s wrong or incorrect. I like and use the tools that it provides. But I am in this post going to point out some philosophical inconsistencies about it.

Does it work? Yes, it can work. I think the issue with any sort of approach to mental health is that it might approach mental health as this monolithic item, most often based in empirical science, which then promotes itself as a kind of cure-all, since, it is viewing any sort of mental health element against its “positivity”.

For one, the ideal approach of problem and solution toward mental health is often a false polemic.

The issue that I have with this positivity is that it promotes a reductive and exclusionary stance upon mental health issues. In this it is not much different than any other theory of psychology and mental health. Sure, it can work depending on the situation. But it doesn’t promote itself that way. It promotes itself as if it’s a solution to all mental health issues regardless of conditions.

This way of promoting psychological and mental health theory, to my mind, is pure capitalism. Pure idealism based in the notion that “greed is good”, for an 80s mantra. It is the idea that because capitalism is real and it’s so prevalent, because capitalism is the de facto economic system of the world, then we should not set it aside. Indeed the positivity is that capitalism is the essence of what is actually true for the lives that we have to live, and that promotion, marketing, theory based on goodness, for a term, is good. Basically that I want all the goodness that I can have and that it it is good regardless of conditions, and so conditions should be ignored, we should focus on the good, and we should be greedy of the good.

The idea of positivist psychology is that we need to get rid of what is negative about our thinking. Here, thinking it’s taken as a given and there is no critical approach to what it is that actually thought might be except that it arises out of an ideological empirical reality called the physical brain.

So, yes. For certain people Who have mental health issues, within particular conditions to those particular people, such reductive approach can be very helpful.

For example, the very reductive cognitive version of a positive psychological approach, to put it very simply example, if I think that I’m no good, then we need to work on replacing those thoughts with I am good. As well, we need to attack those negative thoughts. We need to get rid of them. It seems very sensible, it seems very logical, and indeed for the people that suffer from such negativity, it seems like a good thing, a good approach.

The problem as I see it is that for probably more than half of the people that suffer from that kind of depression or negativity, this positive psychology doesn’t work. It might help, I have found that people for the most part say that it helps a little bit, but overall it doesn’t really help their condition. So, yes, my pain is reduced, but I’m still in chronic pain and I can hardly function, to put a head on it so my issue with such approaches, even though I think they can do good and they can help in many many areas, is that people who practice psychology well then continue to berate the individual with the approach, because they see it as mapping all possibility of mental health. .

And this is not only in the theory of positive psychology. I’m just using this off of my last post where and I mentioned positive psychology.

And PS: sure, my statistic of “half“ is probably not very scientific. But I would submit that any study that positive psychologists would want to give me likewise are perpetually skewed and inherently biased, despite their scientific approach.

For, as I’ve said here and there, My main concern is the exception. I’m not trying to run a marathon, nor am I looking at Health through the lens of whether or not someone is able to run a marathon. Sure, I can help people if that’s what they want to do. But I’m not imposing upon them as an assumption, as though they should assume and see themselves in the light of being able to run a marathon hello.

Reposting Beneath the Iceberg: A Look at Mental Models


Each of us views the world through our own unique pair of glasses. Our experience is shaped by what we pay attention to during our moment-to-moment …

Beneath the Iceberg: A Look at Mental Models

—— I like to expose people to different ideas about things that interest me, even though I may not support the idea itself.

‘Mental health’ is a name for a loose group of problem solving proposals. Each proposal presents how the problem of mental health is framed, and then offers a corresponding solution which makes sense in light of the problem. Becuase so many people use the same words, we typcially understand that there must be these actual things, like mental health, that are beingg addressed through some sort of common effort.

While i do not necessarily agree with this person’s formulation entirely, I do nevertheless agree with pieces of it,while understanding that thier formulation does make sense and so will be useful in certain circumstances or situations of mental health, as well as the ideal of mental health that people assume due to the use of the name.

Cheers! 👽

Being Really Mentally Healthy

Here is my question about health in general.

Because my teeth are not quite shining white, does that mean that my teeth are not healthy?

Here’s another one.

Because I can barely run 50 yards without getting totally winded, does that mean that I’m not healthy?

And, just one more for good measure.

If I only have one friend, does that mean that I am not healthy?


I’m going to put this link on here, not because I am trying to promote this product, but because this product is part of a marketing campaign that has to do with a certain ideal of mental health that I question deeply.

Always mind. Is a catchy little phrase to promote mental health, I imagine, come up with against the colloquialism “never mind”.

And, keep in mind that I am also not necessarily saying that I don’t agree with the ideal behind this marketing campaign, nor am I saying that you should not buy their products or should not agree with the general push of their message.

For sure, there is an idealism which places me along a continuum from unhealthy to healthy, and where I am placed upon that line is less important than I do place myself there in the reckoning of my quality of life and mental health.

My problem with that way of knowing is that I question idealistic promotions, whether they be about my health, whether they be about my talent, my personality, my happiness, my place of living, etc.

When it comes to mental health, because I’m a counselor, I am often thinking less about some idealistic state of mental health, and more about people who are actually suffering from mental health issues.

If you can follow my line of reasoning here: my teeth may be yellow and I may have a couple fillings, but they are far from unhealthy. And this, even though I can talk about how my teeth are not as healthy as, say, my dentist would want them to be or that they should be if I would’ve been a good little boy and brushed my teeth and floss after every meal or at least twice a day throughout my life.

There are two things going on here. One is that yes there is an ideal of health that I surely fall into with reference to what is unhealthy.

Yet, when it comes to my mental health I am not sure that putting me into such a scheme is healthy for my mental health.

Yes, there are people for whom it is very healthy to place themselves in the scheme of mental health and to strive towards some idealistic presentation of being mentally healthy, whatever that is. But, I would say that those people for the most part who enjoy or otherwise are able to fit themselves into such a scheme such that it works for them, I would say that they are already mentally healthy and they don’t really need to worry about their mental health.

At least, for those people if I am helping them with their mental health, I would hardly say that they have any sort of mental health issue except that they have some notion that they want to be “better mentally healthy”.

When I think of mental health I think of it in the context of what could be wrong. Sure, there is the fad of a sort of “positive psychology” which would beg to differ with my estimation, but then I would beg to differ that the very idea of a positive psychology is based on an inflated idea that something could go very wrong with my mental health. So, there’s that useless argument.

What I mean then is that if someone is asking for help, for mental health therapy, it is because something is off, something is wrong.

If I’m going to the dentist to get my teeth cleaned, yes I’m going for my dental health, but I don’t have any dental health issues under the premise that I’m going to get my teeth cleaned. I go to the dentist and I get a cavity filled because something is wrong with my dental health. However, once I have achieved a certain state of dental health, say that five of my teeth have been extracted, two others have fillings in them, one is a crown, my mouth is no longer Dentally unhealthy, despite that I am missing and I have damaged many of them, or in comparison to people that have shiny full set of teeth. My teeth in my mouth are dentally healthy. And so I’m not really sure why I would say a reference my mouth to a dental health except in as much as I was worried about some thing that is going wrong, but more pointedly: in so much as I might have to go to the dentist, it is because something has gone wrong.

At least, this is my point of view as a counselor.

Physical health is not the same as mental Health, because it doesn’t matter what I think about my finger being broken for my finger to be physically unhealthy.

And yet for me to think that my mind might be broken and that it needs to be fixed, may just well aggravate and perpetuate the problem to a mental disorder.

So it is that I have issues with an idealistic Notion of mental health. 


In a kind of structuralist manner, I am healthy only to the extent and with reference to the potential for me to be unhealthy. Therefore. There is no necessity for me to worry about being mentally healthy if I am effective in living my life. So it is that to be concerned with my mental health, what past incarnations called “mental hygiene”, is itself a kind of mental issue, what we could say is a sort of institutional neurosis.xx

Reposting How To Save…the world?

“The function all expressions of contempt have in common is the defence against unwanted feelings.” – Alice Miller I read something the other day …

How To Save Democracy

—- very thought-provoking. The content, but also that there is 200 likes.

It is a compelling argument, and very psycho analytical, to say that it all comes down to our parents. We could fix society and indeed democracy if we could just face and come to terms with the issues that are parents essentially instilled in us, whether intentionally, incidentally or otherwise.

As well, it is very interesting that there’s 200 likes for this post. Of course, it could just be that this guy has a lot of followers, but then as well it goes to support the idea that many people feel that there is some sort of individual that is themselves that own or otherwise is manifested by a psyche that is affected by developmental procedures that parents most directly are involved with. Yes, it is a very common psychological approach that began with at least Freud.

It’s a very common approach to understanding cause , but it doesn’t go very far into how we should deal with it. 

I think it is a deceivingly simple idea which pervades modern people in our society. The idea that “if we could just…” Then that confronting of issues would go along way into improving society.

As an example of the faulty reasoning behind, perhaps this post, but at least the books authors proposal: just because I might know what caused me to get a flat tire, doesn’t mean I know how to get back on the road. The cause of the flat tire doesn’t really help me to fix the tire. Such Knowledge could contribute to how I might go about fixing the tire, for example, pull out the nail. As well, it might inform me about what I should or should not do in the future to avoid getting a flat tire. Overall, though, knowing the cause of the problem doesn’t help me to find a solution to the problem.

It is interesting that such an anachronistic belief in individualism and secularism still pervade common knowledge today. As if psychology holds all the marbles for what goes on with the individual, and as if mental health can only be addressed by psychology.

It indicates a sort of sad myopia that most people who consider themselves intelligent are involved with.

For, all one would have to do is instead of reading the pop-psychology, step over and actually use their brains a little bit and read some philosophy and critical theory. There is well-known evidence in academia and in intellectual sectors that do not see psychology as a domain which pervades over all other domains are, and evidence which suggests that it is not merely the parents which influence thebchildren in these particular ways, rather, it is Society. which is affecting parents which then move to affect children.

A more effective kind of analysis actually takes a little bit more responsibility than saying “we need to confront” or “if we could just” type of thinking. It is this responsibility that begins to see systemic oppression at work, and popular psychology indeed –in a way evidenced by such popularity of this kind of approach to what is going on with the individual –supporting the systemic oppression.

Along these lines then we could even say “if we could just” get people to look at what’s actually occurring, instead of just gobbling up and consuming tastefully concocted psychological spreads on their organic wheat bread and grass raised cows.

Lol. Sorry, my attitude is showing. 😝

For sure, we need to approach people where they’re at and begin to ask them to ponder and reflect and to think about things in the way that they are able to think about things.

However, I think that it is therapeutically irresponsible to allow those people to stay there as if that small reflection is all that needs to be done in order to change themselves or even approach to be able to changing our country or the world.

Of course we need to start with popular psychology. But it is just catering to ignorance to let people think that that is the whole solution.

What does it mean to start within oneself?

Why do we need to confront anything there?

It may well be that all we need to do is deal with what is actually occurring.


Yes; unconditional love for our children, but then how do we instill discipline in them without also imposing trauma?

How do I even begin to approach my issues while I’m simultaneously attempting to raise a child and insulate them from those issues?

There is reason to believe that even as I might be confronting my issues that are inside of me, I am further implementing a trauma that is occurring within me in confronting those issues, that’s aggravating the problem all together under the intention of love.

What are we to do? 

I think it could be that I’m just jealous that I can’t get 200 likes on any post 👽.

I ponder what I would need to change in order to get more than 60 likes. I’m sure some of it is just the content; most people don’t really enjoy thinking too much about things. And my blog is really about the reader confronting oneself. My posts are just an occasion, they are just an instrument of reflection.

So really what I’m pondering is how could I maintain the integrity of such a venture and reach proportionally more people such that I would get 200 likes ?

Cure and mental illness: of ‘cure’ in mental health

In the past years, political theorists, philosophers and historians have increasingly studied changing mental health diagnosis and placed them in the…

Cure and mental illness. A short reflection on the conceptual analysis of the neoliberal characterisation of ‘cure’ in mental health

— Nice.

I had never really thought about how political labels might be involved with mental health and its labeling. Does that mean I am a Neo liberal?

From reading his short essay, it makes me think about imposed categories. It looks like he is saying that a conservative is someone who defines themselves and figures that everyone else should define themselves, and that it is only natural to label oneself and to fit into categories. Whereas a Neo liberal is someone who is defined, who resists definition. It is as though this author is saying that a conservative understand the human of being as involved with a natural rights to define things, and this definition, this act of defining is what makes one human, but it also reflects the actual truth of the universe.

Then, by contrast, the Neo liberal understands the human being as that which is not defined, and problematizes any universe which is defined, locating the human being and it’s essential activity, namely freedom, as the natural activity which arises outside of being defined.

I feel like this precipitate of what the author is saying mirrors what he has described as relationships with the market economy.

Also, this points to the inherent irony involved in neoliberalism, whereas conservatism would find irony merely in particular situation, as defined, rather than irony as an essential part of the human being existing in the universe at all times. The irony being in this case that the differences in political situation is that one defined itself essentially, that the essence of being human is to define and to be defined — there is no irony in this position– while the other find irony everywhere in the fact that it is being defined and having to use terms which itself does not admit it is a part of, or only vicariously a part of.

Wow. So much going on there.

It is interesting that the author notes someone else who says that neoliberalism poses to be defined by acts rather than by definition, but then the author goes on to use that definition to make their arguments, as if by fiat arising ironically within an irony that it wishes to set aside. Similarly my comment as well.


As to a “cure” for mental health. I am not sure that I am a Neo liberal list, but that probably makes me a Neoliberal by default.

I think our new paradigm of mental health doesn’t really make distinctions between being mentally ill and being mentally healthy categorically. Rather, referring to an earlier post of mine and a paper that I am developing, The general ideal of mental health is conservative, and this conservatism sees the human arising naturally in a set of definitions that are universal, that arise naturally in the universe because that is the nature of being human in the universe, along with everything else. It thus sees and promotes as natural everything along a smooth scale of determination; that there is this human being who owns or has a psyche located in the brain, and this brain can manifest itself as a conscious agent in the world along the continuum of mental illness all the way to mentally healthy.

On the other hand, and this is more my view, for an example of the opposite, there is no good faith comparison between someone who is psychotic in general, what we could associate with the spectrum of psychosis (namely schizophrenia, bipolar one, schizoaffective are the names that we put along the spectrum) and someone who is anxious because they think they’re going to be fired from their job.

I feel that society as a general motion tends to lump together psychology, psychotherapy, mental illness, and mental health, into a continuum that is assumed while still working out the actuality of its parameters and distinctions.

I feel that is a weak and, actually, bad way of doing science (which is really what the whole history of psychology is based upon). 

I am not so sure that there is a smooth rule which extends through the human being and it’s arising in the world to place them on a continuum of mentally ill or mentally healthy. For someone that suffers from depression, say, the idea that they are mentally ill, To my mind, is saying something different than to say that someone who suffers from schizophrenia is mentally ill.

Recently, I watched a portion of this movie that a friend offered me called “Zietgiest: moving forward” (you can watch it free on YouTube). The first hour of the movie is basically a very compelling argument how the idea of a foundational cause called genetics, or biology, which is responsible for mental health or mental someone’s mental well-being is not correct an accurate way of portraying what is actually occurring in these situations. 

However, because I do see that certain types of psychosis, the kind of psychosis that lie on the more acute side and chronic side of affect and form, are indeed measurable to a physical diversion from what is “normal” brain appearance, as being “curable” in potential, which is to say that we can give people medication and they definitely stop being as acute, similarly to disease of diabetes, say. 

Yet, in the context of mental health, although we like to think that schizophrenia, psychosis and depression exist along a continuum of mental illness and mental health, the disease of depression does not respond in the same way as psychosis or schizophrenia does to approaching it from this medical model standpoint of curing a disease.

Indeed, we could talk about “curing” depression, but the way that we are going about it is based on a completely different set of protocols and notions then those used to address the disease of acute chronic psychosis.

Because of this actual distinction, because this is what is actually occurring despite what anyone would argue (for sure, though people will continue to argue that medication’s for depression are curing depression, the statistics that would back up that assertion are utterly miserable, while the statistics which go to say that certain medication’s can cure acute chronic psychosis, are much much better) I am not sure that using the word “cure” in all mental health contexts, as if to apply mental health to this assumed general standard, without actually looking at what the standard even is, is an irresponsible way of treating mental health.

There is a further issue that I have with the idea of “cure” as well as the idea of “mental health”, But that is outside of the topic of de Cock’s essay.x

Repost repost:The survival and future of philosophy

Is academic philosophy dead?  Is philosophy itself dead?  Is it even worth bothering about? Rep. Rick Santorum, R-PA, argued years ago that the study…

The survival and future of philosophy

I just keep re-posting your re-posts Maylynne!!!

Here’s how I see it.

No. 😄

It seems to me that people worry about the end of philosophy primarily as a career. At least, people worrying about or contemplating about “the end of philosophy” I see are really stressing on the idea that the career of philosophy might melt away into a general name for a bunch of other topical approaches.

In another sense, I think this concern about the end of philosophy is a manifestation of the contradiction of the modern philosopher’s activity. This is why I tend to advocate, or sort of suggest, that we stop referring philosophical
involvment to other peoples’ opinions, what other people have said (with a caveat that I don’t go into here really).

I see In The re-post re-post that one of the benefits of Philosophy as an academic discipline is that we don’t have to rethink the wheel every time. However, I think that sentiment also really puts a finger on the problem with modern philosophy, modern in the sense of that I’m writing this right now, not modern in the sense of 100 years ago, say, because: don’t we have many Philosophys which discuss the paradox of Philosophy attempting to get outside of itself, to address some thing that is “not” philosophical?

Anyways, I think that Philosophy has died or is in danger of dying because people don’t think anymore. Indeed, and yet, I think this is what Heidegger was referring to, but then everyone reads Heidegger and then stops thinking because they’re referring what they think to what Heidegger thought about thinking. they are told and instructed implicitly, the message that students get communicated is that they do not have to think anymore. This goes to my point about how words are not consistent, they do not refer to a actual singular object no matter how thoroughly and specifically we define it. 

And so what happens is that a “end of philosophy” becomes a concern because people have stopped being philosophical in the sense that the rest of history is understood philosophical: The kids, and even their instructors, are so enmeshed in a society of career philosophy, of referencing authors who referenced authors who reference authors, that the only novel thought that can come about is to not to do philosophy: they got to do something else! That’s what they do, exactly, they stop thinking philosophically (they actually stop thinking).

Instead, they just emulate what other people do.

I’m not sure this is anything new, and I think what is being revealed; in the same way as my last post talks about gun violence: Gun violence and murder and people doing shitty things to other people has always existed. There is not a resurgence of gun violence, nor is there a way to make it be less or make it go away; there is just violence and the news is promoting certain kinds of violence in order to make money.

What we have now is a bunch of people who want to make money. (Read: make a living in what they want to do). And, there’s nothing wrong with that. Indeed we got to make a living. And academics and Philosophy seems really nice and people are moved in that way, but ultimately they’re trying to have a career. And how do you do that? You have to write papers that refer to what other people are saying. And really this is my argument here, that through this modern conventional philosophical process we have achieved have you into what is already happening. We can no longer deny it. And this is it: despite the letters after peoples names, despite the prestigious academic chairs and positions that people might hold, most people, and let me include everyone in the most potential, if I wasn’t clear, even the people that might be esteemed emeritus PhD doctor, do not think (philosophically), that is, unless thinking philosophically is just a kind of thinking that you do while you’re involved with something else. Which, again, there’s nothing wrong with doing something else and saying that I’m approaching it philosophically, but that is different than Philosophy; being involved with philosophy is different than merely thinking philosophically about things. So, what are Philosopher’s actually doing? This is a significant question that I continue to ask an advocate others ask as well. 

Ultimately, what I think this big fear about the end of philosophy is is that people who have historically given lip service to reflecting upon themselves and the world, who really have just been reflecting idealisms within their own sense of ideas, are now realizing through the philosophical motion, that their method of approaching Philosophy is not about thinking.


And as most of my points usually end up: Ever since Kierkegaard we have been slowing down. The response to slowing down, as we find in counseling and mental health therapy, is usually anxiety, an increase in anxiety. (This is not the point of therapy, but indeed people who come in for therapy most often will be or are involved in a process of slowing down, and initially at least, what happens is exactly the opposite.) 

…and what is anxiety? what is the visceral somatic experience of anxiety? what do people Who encounter anxiety report?

They report that their thoughts are racing, they report that they are racing inside.

Let me just drop a term on your lap that seems so popular nowadays: accelerationalism.


What is true is available to everyone, but not really. One has to adjust their orientation upon things, consider the purpose of their activities, and be honest with themselves.

… and these are truths of themselves and the world that most human beings simply refuse.

But Philosophy. is alive and well and going strong. 

Feeling Blah, and then slightly worse…

We are languishing.
— Read on

—– Languishing. I like this article. I like that it gives us a new word. And I was feeling a little better Because the “we’re all in this together” thing, and then this happened:

We still have a lot to learn about what causes languishing and how to cure it…


…and where I was starting to feel better, I was suddenly disgusted. That phrase just revealed a really depressing ideal that underpins peoples sense of mental health things. It is really a kind of Mindlessness, as opposed to the great fad-of-mistake that we generally define as Mindfulness.

Awareness, without judgement is key.

To be honest, I see a mental health fad-idealism catalyzed by the pandemic as the main problem. It is the problem that is the problem, and less the idealized content that ‘problem’ supposes.

The propaganda of mental disease that pervades the ideal of ‘mental health’ in our modern manner is clearly evident in that author’s very casual manner he speaks of how to cure this languishing disease.

All I really got to say to the author’s support: Thanks for helping my job security.

Sure, we totally can frame everything in the context of problem/disease and solution/cure.

No problem folks!

But it’s kinda depressing.


WStay tuned for my papers on the issue.x