“When you are desperate, you will take any advice from someone who says they can help. When you begin to think, though, desperation often stays away, and help arrives in a different form.
However, most people do not want to think, and what they understand as thinking is more like living unconsciously. Thier ideas formed and opinions swayed as the tide of fashion and populism, and what is dictated to them as help often has some effect or appearance of helping. They are kept in a state of existential desperation for the purpose of simple solutions and momentary fixes that lean on dependency. This we call ‘reality’.
Hence, one of the main issues of our time is this contradiction of lived experience.
For, there is no getting people to think simply by telling them that they are ignorant; they routinely will simply tell you that you are wrong, and even resort to violence – whether personal or state-sanctioned – to have the right to their “ignorance”.
On this wonderfully fabricated day of promoting national fecundity, I am pondering all the problems that arise to individuals in relationship.
Neurosis is a latinized word for nervousness. Originally, nervousness just meant excessive worry or sadness.
Though for pretty much all of history various organs of the body were held to be responsible for various ‘strangenesses’ that people would exhibit, It was the great proto-modern scientists of the 18-19th century that capitalized on the nerves as the reason for such oddities.
The actual oddity, though, is it is reasonably possible that there is no more or less reason to see a connection between ‘disordered’ behavior and the nerves than it is to see a link between odd behavior and any other organ. It is only the lens we are having now that we see through the trope of “nerves-brain”.
As well, when we look with a discerning mind, no more or less people are being ‘fixed’ due to an emphasis on the brain than they were when it was other organs, humors, or even “sin” that was the problem of behavioral oddity.
Capitalism and Empiricism
Capitalization – the emphasis of developing useful something from an apparent excess of nothing – thus moved our modern psychology to focus on the mass of nerves called the brain as the cause of human behavior oddity.
Yet, due to the lack or general inability for psychology and it’s ilk to really make a dent in the problems it defines, neurosis, as a name for a disease, has been broken up into multitudinous parts, yielding the “disorders” we find in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders -5 that we use now. As though coming up with more diseases will solve the problem instead of just one problem ‘neurosis’.
So, when someone tells you that you have General Anxiety Disorder or Major Depressive Disorder due to bad relationships, you can tell them that actually you simply are a little more worried and sad about things than most people. And maybe if they would stop being so neurotic you might actually be ok! 😁
As well, you can tell them it probably has very little to do with your brain or nerves — any more than it has to do with your lungs or your liver — or any other chemical mass.
And, as to the topic of chemistry:
if all we are looking for is to feel better, we may have to take another look at addiction, what that really means, and whether institutional addiction under the name of ‘medication’ is really an ethical standard we want to support.
No judgement; just open consideration of the facts.
HAPPY VALENTINES DAY!
Perhaps if we understand mental issues as an issue of the heart, we might actually get somewhere!
In a crazy world, it’s the ones that are actually responding rationally who are deemed problematic.
“When one speaks about a thing, she does so vicariously.”
—- Cedric Nathaniel.
I think I’m just naturally rebellious. I’m not at heart a joiner.
I can, though, be a team player. In fact, I love where I work primarily because we have such a great team. However, I feel that a team is a group of people who all have a common goal, even while they may not have a common general philosophy behind what we do as a team toward that goal. We definitely do not share a similar ideology or belief about what it is we are involved with or what it means. Quite remarkably, we share a common purpose as a motion of what we are doing. We work well as a team because we share the common bond of what we do together.
I’d have to say that a team is the name for a motion of a group of people who feel a sense of camaraderie around a purpose. Even if that purpose is philosophically indistinct.
My Issue with Society, or the Ideal of the Social
I am, somehow, involved with society and social things, even as I would say I’m not a very social person. My therapeutic work as a counselor has something to do with society, as a sort of underpinning, only spoken in certain context specific to the client, primarily concerned with the person or people in front of me and not theories or ideologies.
Yet, my philosophical work is not social, neither is it about a person, the person, or people. I have to use these words and indeed I talk about them and they are involved with my work; however, I feel if I use these words or invest myself too much into the objects that these words are supposed to be indicating as a substrate (subjects), I cannot help but to feel naturally resistant.
That is the critical posture despite belief.
I feel that being human, being part of society, dealing with people and the world, it’s just some thing that happens. It is a kind of given that has nothing to do with whether or not I’m using words about them or making theories, asserting my agency about how they might fit together, what they are, or what we’re supposed to do about them.
Does God Exist?
Reference my approach on the issue of God‘s existence.
Recently, I was come upon by a person and a discussion with them that comes every once in a while, but routinely.
The question that will come out is, “Do you believe in God?” Or similarly, “Do you believe that God exists?”
My answer was met with a blank stare and look of confusion from the other person.
My answer: “ The existence of God has nothing to do with any effort I make. God‘s existence has nothing to do with my belief. Belief, I feel, is overdetermined. I use the word ‘belief’ very intentionally, in the sense that “I believe I might play guitar today”, or, “I believe that this coffee is too cold”. I do not use the word ‘belief’ as indicating anything that has to do with the truth of some thing, some supposed or proposed object of the question. For example, I do not believe that the chair exists. But likewise, any discussion about the theory of existence does not require my belief. Rather, I would believe something within the discussion with reference to the discussion that already exists or is existing by virtue of the fact that we’re having the discussion.
So it is: I do not believe that God exists.
But if I say that to a person that’s asking me whether I believe that God exists or whether or not I believe in God —which I see is basically the same question despite philosophical dissections — what will happen is that the person will routinely misunderstand what I’m saying. I
So, in my effort to try to be clear to this person about what I’m saying, I simply tell them that I have no belief about god whatsoever, simply by virtue of the fact that God‘s existence has nothing to do with whether or not I believe in it (him,her). And I might add, in the same way as your existence has nothing to do with whether or not I believe that you exist.
If we understand anything about what people have said philosophically over the years, it is a plain fact that I have to somehow deal with the categories that are already there. It has nothing to do with whether or not I believe they exist; it has more to do with whether or not I feel that those categories are accurately representing the situation in which I find myself.
Note: The categories have to do with the situation in which I find myself.
This is different than what I see is most philosophers discussing. Most philosophers, most essays books treaties arguments speak of categories as if they exist independent of other things. And so the discussion or the argument revolves around a very subjective, phenomenal existence: the phenomenal agent is able and is justified in distinguishing things in themselves apart from other things. This despite what argument they might be making or what category to which they apply themselves.
So it is that in dealing with this situation, I find difficulty at every turn calling myself a philosopher. My assertion mostly fails at every juncture. I understand intuitively what I mean, but as I go to engage philosophically with what society or the larger group of people who are supposedly involved with Philosophy understand as Philosophy, I find myself at an impasse. I find myself unable to move. I feel it in a very regular way, as I put it, probably because I’m not a joiner. Idealism is not really my thing.
I have to find someway to identify what it is that I’m involved with. I find most of the given philosophical categories are so well assumed, that I am excluded, in the Kantian scheme, a priori and synthetically.
I am involved with knowledge. No matter what else is going on, everything has to pass through knowledge. It doesn’t matter so much whether that is a phenomenon; indeed I would have to say it is indeed a phenomenon, but then also we’ve already found out everything there is about the logic of phenomenal existence as a category. If you would say we haven’t then I would say you are either just beginning or missed something. Then perhaps we should have an discussion. I’m not sure…
Nonetheless, epistemology would be the usual way that I might identify myself. But I also find that if I start saying ‘epistemology’ there is a whole set of presumed and assumed history about what I’m talking about and what I’m doing.
I am going to try and use a new term:
This has to do with everything that can possibly exist, be talked about, be known, and must arise in knowledge and discourse truly. ￼
As well, because I think when we start to talk about “philosophy of…” some thing interesting, we have necessarily fallen into a discourse and understanding that already exists, and thereby excludes what we’re really talking about as a subject of knowledge. So, what an Epistemist deals with is truth Philosophy.
It does not propose a philosophy of truth, because it is already dealing with everything that can be exist by virtue of the fact of addressing knowledge truly.
I have an issue with conventional philosophy: the method it assumes to make its statement that the problem of the criterion is generally figured to be the main problem of epistemology, is a real philosophical issue. So, because we can indicate the method as redundantly involved with the problem it poses, I must disagree to the basic premise that is going unsaid. Namely, that there is a knowable center of knowing from which knowledge can be said to be knowledge.
However, my extended discussion is not this post. I really mean to show how this conventional philosophical method extends and plays out all across every aspect of knowledge that figures itself to be philosophical.
The issue that I’m pointing out is that there really is no distinction between what could be a philosophy of Christianity any proposed Philosophy and argumentation about it.
This is the problem is the criterion: There is no criterion. Which is to say, the criterion is the proposal itself, what I call “redundant”.
And in comparison, we might even suggest that Christianity is being more honest in where it gets its idea for its proposal, because at least these Christian apologists say that there is an intuitive understanding of God that is informing our ability to make statements and arguments. In a strange way, I think this is more honest than what more academic philosophers would say about ideology or politics or any other topic. Even the Michel Foucault users – and I like Foucault – are unable to admit such a simple idealism at route to their discussion.
So it is that I say when we talk about what is actually occurring, what knowledge actually is, what epistemologically must be the case, I feel that these philosophical ideals really fall drastically short.
And if you’re interested you can look past into my blog, and maybe even read some of my published material.
Of course, I do not believe nor advocate that any sex or gender practice or identity should be considered pathological. I believe exactly the opposite in principle.
However, we should be open minded enough to consider that some people may have personal challenges in their developed practices of identity. Someone could be homosexual and be uncomfortable because they feel they have to do heterosexual practices, just as much as someone may be heterosexual and feel that they’re attracted to their same sex. Similarly trans and gender fluid.
No one in general, as human beings, should impose standards of mental health or pathology upon people to “correct” how they are.
As I develop in an upcoming paper, the standard for intervention is needed help.
As counselors, we should accept that people may come to us with problems of identity, whatever they are, and be willing to look at it with an open mind and consider the possibilities involved for helping them.
In case anyone has not noticed.
I feel that psychology in general is often not very helpful for looking at things as they are, nor excepting what is actually occurring. So, I have a sort of natural antagonism to these decidedly modern, empirical, and scientific approaches to what it is to be human and it’s accorded health to its mentality.
This is not to say that I don’t approach those empirical sciences with a similar open mind to possibility, nor that I don’t find their efforts informative or useful. Just that one should know in reading my blog about counseling and helping people that I feel that psychology tends to reflexively impose a drastic violence of bias upon people it supposes to work to help, and I feel responsible to challenge its move of explanatory power and direction.
One can Read my upcoming paper about orientations upon mental health. ￼
Here is another example of The Two Routes in practical effect.
The fact of the climate changing is true.
Climate Change is real.
The truth of the climate changing is something human beings must deal with — and will deal with — despite politcal argument about what is real.
To say that Twitter is not being politically neutral in thier allowance of news, as this repost suggest, is to say that what is real is always politically negotiated.
However, to promote this negotiation as though the climate is not involved with human activity is still politically real, and harms humanity by attempting to avoid the truth.
This is the basic issue at hand in our real political world at this point: That what is true takes a while to get an effective foot hold into the political discussion. The debate shows that the truth is not being discussed, but only reality. Over time, the truth of our relationship with the climate will be beyond effective dispute, and reality will have likewise changed.
The overall issue of Climate Change is that we have named the problem, but we have not realized that we are in a relationship with it, with Climate Change, as so have not been able to imagine ourselves in a different situation. In other words, we are in a dysfunctional relationship and we continue to try and fix the relationship, but the “partner” is not having it.
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.
Of all the archetypes and complexes that Jung and Jungian congregants entertain and uphold, throughout his system and work he routinely misses the most significant one…
The modern complex.
In fact, I could say that this lacuna forms the basis why the Jungian approach often misses the mark:
His is but one manner among many. And thus has little significance in this mistaking.
In recognizing the influence of the modern complex, then does Jungian forms become more salient.
Ironically, the modern complex arises with systems of individuation.
Jungian psychology can be understood in the context of modern philosophy that considers all things through totality.
Jung’s system is based in an assumption of all, and thereby presents a very Hegelian psychology, of sorts. Never quite noticing that this all is the assumption of a privileged view upon the world, both the philosophy and psychology work to perpetuate the consolidation of ideological power.
We call this kind of motion, religious.
What actually arises, though, still Quite Jungian though, is never the consolidation but rather always the view of progress and perfection. Hence, the missed component of much of Jungian ideals is that individuation never occurs but is always merely the teleology of the motion.
The modern complex operates through the belief that such consolidation/individuation will actually occur and will arise at some point.
—- 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.￼