Trauma Informed Care

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.

Systemic Abuse

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 “Experiencing Psychosis” 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?

What was your reaction?

The Moment of Decisive Significance: Enlightenment and the Christ Moment

The moment of enlightenment is only initially an awareness of being. After that moment it is an awareness of how so few are aware. The real issue of enlightenment has to do with what comes after.

When we understand Christ in its proper scope, we see that ‘enlightenment’ is the attempt by the individual to uphold and maintain It as a prolonged state of being. The way it is maintained Is through the justification of the offense.

The Christ moment, and the ideal of enlightenment, is a moment of being conscious that when come upon represents a moment of decisive significance.

In this moment, the awesomeness and apprehensive feeling of dread might bring the individual to fall back into its history to thereby join and retain the consistency of what they know and knew to that state of fear and trembling. The coupling of the Christ moment with the fall back (revolt) into the fear of the awesomeness of the tremendous mystery that is come upon in that moment, yields righteousness, what some could call “ego inflation”. Enlightenment is the form of consciousness understanding itself and its view as something that everyone else is supposed to likewise know.

On The other hand, when the Christ moment, it’s awesomeness and the accompanying state of fear and trembling, is come upon in curiosity, then the motion is one of compassion instead of righteousness. For the self, it continues the motion of curiosity and acceptance, but this self is not the primary aim. The motion is into otherness. Difference.

For, instead of understanding how intellectually or ethically wrong and spiritually poor everyone is around, such that they need to be educated into the righteousness of proper knowledge, The Christ moment fades into just one moment in the potential of human consciousness. Enlightenment disappears as some thing that was never to be found. The meaning of awareness changes.

The awareness that remains is not enlightened awareness, neither is it Christ being; rather it is a true human compassion for those people Who have come upon and yet not followed through such a moment.

It is a true understanding of what it is to be human.

Read The Moment of Decisive Significance: A Heresy

…and much more affordable paperback!.

An object oriented journey through the Gospels.

The Difference Between Mental and Physical Health: Peak Performance

Physical health: bodies and parts of bodies, or organs, that function how they should.

Mental Health: a human thoughtful life that functions the way it should ??

Ppl Peak performance is desired and implicated in physical health. We want our heart,say, to pump blood with out hindrance throughout the body.

Mental health is not always about peak performance.

An idea of Mental health that implies peak performance is only a particular goal for mental health. Due to the promotion made by the discipline of psychiatry and psychology, the notion of peak performance is very often assumed as implied in the usage of the term. However, The assumption of likeness actually more often contributes to poor mental health than it does to a persons benefit, or even societal benefit at that.

Yet the notion of peak performance in the scheme of similarity between physical and mental health is not a bad thing. Indeed, there are many aspects about mental health which do appear to coordinate with the same notions of physical health.

For example, various types of problem-solving; skills of peak performance of mental health can be achieved. Think of playing chess, or think of organizing one’s house or place of living. Problem solving skills so far as having good relationships can also bring about a sense of peak performance as it relates to one’s health of their psyche.

The problem with the equation between physical and mental health lay exactly in the fact that in order for us to understand what physical health is, we have to use our mental faculties. So it is that when we try to approach mental health in the same way as physical health we have the problem concerning the strange reductionism of a mind attempting to understand the mind.

It appears that mental health, or being mentally healthy, coordinates more with what a person thinks about themselves, and less about what outside psychological interventions we might impose upon a person.

This is at root the main issue with the psychiatric or psychological promotion that mental health is or acts the same or responds the same as physical health: that mental health extends to something more than the individual, that is, to a common human ideal.

There are many books and papers and a whole lineage of criticisms about psychology and psychiatry, how they are “soft sciences“. There is an abundance of history which shows clearly that early psychologists and psychiatrists wanted their discipline and practice to be on equal footing as the newly moneymaking and prosperous physical sciences. It is not difficult to find everywhere arguments of why this should not be the case, but as well, psychology began an intensive PR to approach mental health through “the disease model”. This is still the same approach that we have today that informs the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental illnesses, called the DSM, for short.

Probably the best and only thing that the conventional psychological and psychiatric approach can offer people that are suffering from the “mental illnesses”, and people who suffer from “poor mental health“, is to get them strung out on managed addictions.

Again this is not necessarily bad. Nevertheless, we have to ask ourselves, truly, what is it that we are after, and what is it that the client is actually after. For many people, the answer is “I just want to feel good”. So great. Why not let these people smoke pot their whole lives. Or put them on some medication that allows them to feel good, whether it be Xanax or Valium or Wellbutrin or Prozac?

Despite the fabulously logical and sensible idealistic Systems that degreed professionals like to develop in their libraries brought over from their clinics, Most people are often only helped in the sense that they “seem better” from their own subjective standpoint, but alas, mainly in the clinical setting with the doctor or the therapist sitting there giving them a barrage of surveys and interview questions so they can present the material to insurance companies for reimbursement.

We find even though I may be able to achieve peak performance in categorized and segregated aspects, in artificial designations and coordination of what the psyche is, structures of the mind, etc. Correlations with various parts if the brain or nervous system, Still depression will persist, and not just in some people. In fact, with most people who suffer, conventional psychological approaches fail for the psychological ideal. Even with the numerous applications into parts of the brain or parts of the structure of mind or the attempt to fix relationships between parts of the mind or the psyche or interfere with the physical functioning of the brain, people often enough still battle with wanting to kill themselves. People will still be depressed and anxious and hate their life. People Still suffer from the supposed mental illness.

However, if we are working in mental health towards this concept of peak performance, if indeed the mind is functioning like the physical body, and we are allowing this kind of intervention to solve the mental health issue, then we would have to reflect back upon physical health and ask ourselves why I can’t do opium all the time, or why I can’t athletes do steroids. Just a thought.

Again, this is not to whole heartedly knock and attempt to negate or destroy psychology and psychiatry and all the mental health attempts to help people.

This is a call to be more discerning and observant against what seems so naturally logical, or what appears to make sense to our Kantian-Hegelian reasonable consciousness, as it is indeed presently translated into all our modern approaches to health.

Cognition and Cosmology

The main and largely unrecognized model for the human mental being is the Cognitive Model.

In short, it says there is a Situation, we have thoughts about it, These thoughts are automatically associated with particular emotional responses, and we act or behave. This behavior is an interaction with the world, and this interaction is the situation.

Now, the typical approach to mental health from the cognitive model is to eliminate that there is an actual interaction, and qualify it to say that there are things happening in the world, and then we have these perceptions upon them and those perceptions bring about this cycle.

While this model seems very intuitive and indeed it makes for a really good closed system by which science can then default to other situations that fall outside of the cognitive model, say for example, body chemistry, to this justify why we need an over abundance of medication to solve this fundamentally bio chemical problem, The model itself is only upheld through redundant conceptual reinforcement which ignore the actual situations which would otherwise disrupt its cogency.

The actual situation is indeed the human being in the world. The cognitive model therefore is very good for a first step kind of involvement in what is actually happening in a mental situation, or a psychic situation to use a couple words, but it fails in as much as it tends to perpetuate mental issues for the sake of justifying the model.

The cognitive model becomes more and more myopic, discerning to its own categories, and enforcing of scientific dogma the longer it stays around, the less people are actually getting helped, and the more money that is made through psycho pharmacology.

I’m not saying that it is not helpful, nor am I saying that with certain people and with certain type of situation it can be a total system of help and effective. But I am always thinking of the exceptions, and in this case it is the predominance of people with mental health issues that the cognitive model only gets a short way towards helping.

Then, often instead therapists and psychologist Fail to notice that there might be an issue with their basic concept of what’s occurring, and they continue the same method of approach to the problem. The problem continues to be conceptualized within the cognitive model, and they merely decide to intervene differently, use different concepts but upon the same idea that there is this cognitive flow functioning and that ideally it is responsible or at root for all mental health issues.

*

I feel there is a better way. This better way is to see that the cognitive model is like a doorway into what is actually occurring. It is a way to begin to conceptualize what is going on, but then also a way to problematize that concept for the client.

That is to say through the creating Problems with fundamental concepts, concepts that are assumed, thereby does the problem of mental health, the mental health issue, become opened up to the possibility that it is not really a problem. This is to say, that the problem itself is aggravated in that cosmologically intuited problem that cognition is something that happens within the human being which is essentially separated from the actual functioning world.

The problem here is then within the construct itself. We thus move into process over placating.

Two dynamics are that’s it play in the perpetuation and maintenance of a problematic heuristic towards mental health, and the cognitive model is that route in this.

On one hand, the cosmological separation of the individual from the rest of the world opens up a gap in conceptual space. This gap that can be only filled in one of two ways,

and that these two ways work to reinforce cosmology behind the scenes.

Number one. The gap is filled with this empirical enigmatic phenomenon called biology, but specifically brain and neurons and Nuro chemistry. The cognitive model can always defer the fundamental problem to be that of Nuro chemistry and Bio physiology. And, as these empirical approach never really solve the problem, but then serve to found and perpetuate a resource for doctors and other moneymakers as career and institution, The client themselves, why approached with a genuine compassion is never the less left out to dry. Strung along a route led by a carrot which is always transcendent to their experience. Placed in the hands of the benefit of the doctors and the therapists and the scientist.

Hence two; the other way to fill this gap is ideological. The reason why the default is to Nuro chemistry and biology is so that the ideology is either understood as a fantasy, or Theory, or as just resultant to the Nuro chemistry, which is nothing more than to say that we our individual human beings with Nuro chemical problems that is having an issue of concept and precept upon the world that is separate from us.

The ideology fills the function of a religious cosmology. For, the function of religion is not analysis, it is not that “God is dead”. The very notion that God is dead fulfills the religious function of the modern individual in society and the world. Just as its counterpart, religious theology in the institutional sense, for fills the gap involved in the strictly academic theoretical application of sense.

To Brain or Not to Brain …

www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freud-fluoxetine/201912/why-do-we-separate-psychiatry-and-neurology

…Is that the question ?

A short commentary on the problem between neurology and psychiatry.

I tend to see that debate between people who are trying to help humanity from a pure idealism into the actual individual. That the people who are studying the brain, and the people who are studying behavior, are really just coming up with theories to explain their empirical givens. And the debate is between those two theoretical ideals, rather than a debate about actual real life mental situations..

However,

There is a further point of contention between those “empirical science” approaches to helping with mental issues, and those practitioners called counselors who actually attempt to help the individual people in reality. This can be described as the difference between pure idealistic theory and practical theoretical actuality.

But that discussion is for another post. x

Seeing Empty And Full, and some Jung

The Uses of Not Thirty spokes meet In the hub. Where the wheel isn’t Is where it’s useful. Hollowed out, clay makes a pot. Where the pot’s not is …

Empty And Full

— I love those little poems. They are so filled with meaning. One could even more say:

we structure our thoughts with words, but where are the words are not, there is what is useful.

Or perhaps something in a way even more profound:

psychology provides a structure of explanation about what is going on in mental health,

but where is psychology is not, there is what is useful.

*

Much of my thoughts about psychology, as a career science are generally not very supportive of it. Sadly, I feel that the effective purpose of psychology is to exult status, and not to actually help people. Psychology leaves a sour taste in ones mouth, whenever I think about psychological theories and testing and outcomes and conclusions. When we really look and see what is actually occurring, The psychological proposals that are supposed to help people be mentally healthy tend to appear to be talking about a select few people who want to organize themselves around being mentally healthy. Everyone else, which is the other 88% is left in a gray area where psychology is supposed to mean something to them, that they’re supposed to feel better, but really all that’s happening is they are taking meds and then hoping that The therapy in interventions based on statistical outcomes is making them better than they were two weeks ago or whatever. It’s like a kind of hypnotism or suggestion; psychology the name just has such a force that people having mental health issues, if they are being treated psychologically, then they are sort of “hopefully convinced” well enough that psychology is indeed going to help them, that perhaps they most likely just hope them selves by pretending that they’re doing better. If we ask them more questions, then they will believe we know something useful to help them, kind of approach. The opposite of the notion that was is “not” is actually what is most useful.

*

Psychology in the large general sense is helpful to many people., so I’ll stop that General complaint right there. For like most things, the name ‘psychology’ is used for such a vast assortment of practices and philosophies and determinations for meaning that it almost doesn’t mean anything at all, but that I tend to pick those pieces that are psychological which appear to be at least infused with I want for goodness, and I’ll leave it at that.

Out of compassion, I recognize that most people are stuck in the middle, and so to engage with a philosophical discussion about the merits of what psychology is supposed to deal with, doesn’t really help those people. It just makes them more worried.

**

Id Never really read Carl Jung, which is to say, I’ve never really known about his history very much except in a general sense, and I tend to have only heard about and base my opinions upon just general kind of “spiritual” notions that he tends to be involved with, The “fad” Jungian stuff, and my impression of him has always been slightly worried. I worry that people see what he is saying is so profound.

I’ll try to clarify.

Now that I’ve delved a little bit further into actually the person who he was, and the actual development of his psychological theories, I am confirmed in my concern.

Psychology is not really a science in the sense that we currently understand science, which is to say the “hard” sciences; it is, as a colleague of mine said, a “very soft” science. And in fact, his (a counselor and a registered nurse in the mental health field for over 25 years) opinion was that it is hugely biased and it’s approaches to finding things out, and the people who are psychologists are often extremely pompous and defensive about their practice and Philosophy.

Now, this is just in America. I get the feeling from a European friend-colleague that psychology is very deep over there and taken very seriously as a very profound and substantial body of knowledge. It is in America also, but I tend to think Americans tend to be rebels, and, I am as well just naturally resistant. But I try to keep an open mind.

*

Anyways. Jung.

He definitely develops an intensionally closed system of spirituality. It can’t really be denied once you understand from where the more “spiritual” ideas of Jung in psychology stem. He did not really break from Freud in a radical way, he broke from Freud in that they were generally developing two different systems about how the psyche operates and what it is. By this, I mean to say that they weren’t really considering what is really going on; what was radical about his break it’s ultimately just that they differed on their theoretical opinions. There was nothing really radical about the break except if you consider what was happening in the first part of the 20th century so far as the way that human beings and scientists were able to understand the human being and the universe. They were considering empirical evidence and coming up with theories to explain the empirical given.

I think that is the short tiny short version of what is been confirmed to me through investigating Jung. From this investigation I get the feeling that what people get from Jung usually is really not what he was trying to give. or, indeed what he was trying to give is contrary to what actually occurs. This is to say, in so much as he offers us a closed system, people use that closed system through which to offer a kind of “open psyche” involved with the universe.

This is just a blog post so I’m not going to go into all the various aspects of proof, because it wouldn’t work anyways. Suffice it to say that his assumption was upon an essential difference between the human being and the universe, that this assumption goes by the name “empirical”, and that Jungian psychology is a description of how the psyche functions in so much as the psyche is located and is developed through the physical brain and perhaps general biological human system. If he is understood to have moved out of this closed domain, it is merely because the system that he created posits such transcendence.

His is a perfect spirituality of modernity.

Now, I’m not suggesting that he doesn’t have good things to say or that he did not come up on things that were actually occurring, neither am I saying that some of his extrapolations of explanation are not applicable to what is actually occurring.

However, I am saying that the systems of modernity are inherently partial to subjectivity. This is not because subjectivity accounts for everything that is possible, rather, it is because in the partiality of subjectivity lay the problems and motions that Jung describes. Empiricism is the systemic subjective proposal of objectivity. It stems from and is based in the primacy of the subject given of the universe.

My point is, I suppose, that individuation, the process that the subject is involved with, is in itself, in the end, something that is not modern. It appears Jung did not recognize this, and hence the confirmation of my concern.

The process of individuation is the object of the psychology of the subject.c

Psychology and Ideology

From “Mental Automatisms“. commentaries and translation of the work of Gaetan Gatian de Clerambault. by Paul Hriso, M.D.

Used without permission.

*

There is ample evidence that shows that medication for mental illness is not as much based in science as it is in an ideology that medicine might have a beneficial effect upon mental issues.

Despite what might be said of why psych meds work, Psychologists do not really know why they indeed do, and in fact, even though some sort of effect has and does occur in many people with mental health issues. What that effect actually is is so vague, and the numbers generally so statistically insignificant given the ever so fast growing number of people with such issues, that it is almost enough to say that they do not do much physiologically, and indeed, their noted effectiveness is the product of an ideological enforcement not very unlike early Catholic ideals, supported arguments and enforcements about the Earth being the center the universe.
x

From quite near the beginning of what we know now at psychology there has been a concerted effort of career professionals to mold the ideas about the psyche toward what we know as empirical physiology and science. This is to say that even the word science It’s self has been commandeered by a project, a clumping together of empirical observations, that if it were not for the career motive, psychology As an effort to help people With their mental health would probably be a name for a loose set of differentiators, different groups of causal associations from empirical observation andlikely would not be associated under a common theme of physiology.x

The money motive seems to inform and be a sort of gravitas for anyone that enters the mental health field, whether they be counselors, social workers, psychologist psychiatrist neurologist — Anyone who enters the any of those fields is immediately keelhauled into this “empirical science paradigm” were medicine, psychiatry and psychology and the medical model are the pinnacle aspiration for truth, and is where everyone should be properly headed if they are trying to help this person in front of them, or get help themselves.

I question this assumption deeply. For it is really the love of money that is the root of all evil, and if we follow some of my philosophical explorations in this blog, most of the time people are not choosing what they love. So I say responsibility has to do with a self reflection that might not be occurring in this axiomatic reflection of empirical physiological scientific human being.  It is as though psyche-science is a kind of sleepwalking. 

My position on this, though, is not that psych meds do not work or are working due to some sort of mass hysteria. The issue is more that ideological constraint might shape investigators to view the situation along certain lines of causality and connection, and thus motivation and constraint may be due to the supreme importance money and career grant to our sense of the righteous world.x

It is as though clumping of psychology and physiology has become such a religious cosmological identity thatpeople just blindly move along a line of conclusions which merely verifies and confirms that their Nightwatch discovers facts.

The philosophical responsibility is what to do. For the psychological and emotional reactivity that ensues whenever a deeply held an axiomatic truth is confronted, more often prevents change were change is needed. And this is because the emotional activity which informs and it’s connected to subjective empirical truths, as a defense yield and violence appropriate to maintaining that ideological constant, despite what might be true.

To be responsible, then, is to realize that mental health is found through strategies of confronting this bias, rather than pure philosophical argumentation. For, the argumentation more often yields antagonisms which confirm the ideological bias then it does actual progress for human benefit. 

The Conventional Limit

–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.