Exhibit of Mental Health Compromised by Covid-19 Measures

apple.news/AheduBnEkSHaCcGnkhSGQ9w

This references the video posted on the Huffington article. And the protests in general.

Trump supporters Protest the stay at home orders.

It seems to me the only sensible way to view these protests is through the lens of mental health.

I do not think it is reasonable to say that these people are not intelligent or stupid or to politicize their behavior in anyway. It is not merely that they are Trump supporters; Rather, by not being a leader, Trump is taking advantage of a compromised community. Trump looks for those who are already weak and then takes advantage of them for his own profit. 

The reason why the protesters are behaving this way is because they are emotionally upset and are not able to deal with their emotions in a constructive way.

Of course they are emotionally upset. Of course their lives are being affected in a terrible way due to the virus. Their responses are perfectly reasonable in the sense of being upset and not knowing what to do, and so they act out. They are justifiably angry and scared, yet the coronavirus is an uncontrollable force of nature, and so instead of coming to terms with their relationship to this force and come together with the rest of humanity, They pull back and blame and lash out at what is around them. it’s pretty much a panic response. It is almost a textbook maxim of mental health problems.

They are unable to see the truth of the matter because, One could say and in a manner of speaking, they did not have a good mental hygiene.

 

x

Not Emotional, but Rational?

Is there a time when you are not emotional? That is, when you’re awake at least. 😄

What is that state? Is the only time you are emotional is when you are “feeling“ emotions? What are you feeling when you’re not feeling emotional? Are you then “thinking“ emotional?

It’s kind of an interesting exploration into what rationality is when we include emotions into our state of being.

For, rationality is kind of a ethical label. If one thinks back to the beginning of psychotherapy with Freud, it is difficult to see rationality as neutral when we see a specifically sexist mental disorder of the likes called ‘hysteria’.

And in case anyone didn’t know, hysteria is this mental illness that only women had. Never mind that there’s a whole critique of Freud in as much as all these great founding psychoanalytical issues and Theories were based upon Freud sitting in a room with various wealthy women who just talked with no interruption from him. Then the three hour session would be over and they would part and Freud would go into a study and pen these great theories of how the mind works.

So I’m still wondering what an emotionally neutral state is. What is “not emotional”? And then what does that have to do with being rational?

Is there a time in my day when the ability to think is not informed by my emotional state?

Maybe the “ratio“ of rationality is a measurement or a taking an account of emotion.

Philosophical Dimension.

https://soundcloud.com/usertransspace/reason-emotion-and-religion-groove-n-talk

@

it is possible to understand philosophy as having two dimensions. Non-philosophy thus is the philosophical ability to comprehend the use of the real object called philosophy.

The issue that philosophy raises against this Confinement of its resources and agency, is that philosophy seeS itself –or permits a view that is itself –as without dimension; it understands or otherwise presents reason as having a link to an infinite source, what we generally call transcendence, or what the postmodern called immanence — because what the postmoderns are really saying about immanence is that the human being is able to get a hold of transcendence entirely .

The only argument that philosophy can make against what we are beginning to understand is it’s own limitation is to merely reify it’s access to infinite reasonable adaptation.

And this is why we have to speak of the two routes: conventional philosophical thinking is not really grasping that it is at once an infinite resource, while at the same time able to be described to its limitation. Conventional philosophy will use the rebuttal of no predictive capacity to say that philosophy is not being defined to its limitations. And then the only response to that is that conventional philosophy is not comprehending the issue at hand. Conventional philosophy sometimes then will take that as an affront to its agency, to its eminence, to its privilege and centrality. And thus would be Because it is not grasping that to describe itself to its limitation is not an insult nor an invalidation; rather it is an invitation to its constructive use. All the while opening up an avenue for thought that it is unable to conceive or otherwise encompass.

As well, it generally cannot conceive of an act that is not involved in an assertion of power as it understands power as the ubiquitous universal underlying force. Again, this is the reason why we have to speak of two routes upon objects that do not reconcile into a further unity.

Emotion and Reason. Part 5

I got this from Philosophics Blog who was commenting on my series of post.

lets see if i can get to my point of all this.

In Parts 1 and 2 I posed an exercise of monitoring and then graphing ones emotional intensity over a period of time. Then I pondered if it would be possible to develop a similarly construed graph of Reason intensity. I received a number of comments from friends and readers about this. And the issue was all the same: How could we graph an intensity of Reason ? Some asked or attempted to grapple with such a monitoring and scaling and others wanted a definition or are trying to find a definition by which we could then appraise Reason graphically.

^

I was not trying to trick anyone. I honestly was wondering what people thought about it. It just crossed my mind that we so easily could make a chart of emotional intensity over time regardless of what the emotion was — could we do the same with reason?

I guess the answer is apparently not.

The graph above I think came close to what I was formulating in my mind about how, if I could rate an intensity of Reason, how emotion might relate to it.

I was also thinking quite similar to:

However, I think my original idea behind this series was more about how inseparable Reason and Emotion is; less polemical and more correspondent.

The reason I was asking folks to think of charting emotional intensity was for a setting up of a different model for how Reason and emotion relate, one where Reason is not a mitigating or taming aspect of emotion but rather the converse.

So let’s use the hypothetical graph.

As an instructional analogy, I suggest that Reason is that part of human consciousness which is the graphed line, and emotion the space below the line. Instead of taming or stifling or controlling emotion, Reason rides the line of emotional intensity usually exhibiting an unaware and incognizant state of awareness–while regularly dismissive –of its emotional affect: The thing we usually understand as Reason is when consciousness is not acknowledging the emotional state involved with its operating, which is to say, Reason is seen, viewed or understood as by definition not being influenced by emotion — or at least this is a common idealized goal for “being reasonable”. This seems to be such an ideal mandate that where we might conflate Reason declares Reason as a flat exemption from emotion such that “what is able to see truth” has been compromised and thus develops a compensation for its (reason’s) own lack called irrationality, say, and as though Reason has stepped out of the picture in the being able to identify the irrational and the rational state.

{I advise one take counsel from the non-philosophical idea of unilateral duality, which I have talked about often in my posts recent and long past.}

Reason thus may identify a particular manner by which consciousness establishes the human being in the world as indeed an object which has only reasonable connections with the universe. And this is to say, the polemic such as the figures above could represent what is able to arise once Reason is picked out, so to speak, to distinguish the human being as special and self-evidently separate from the universe, that is, except along those specific junctures that reason dictates or reflexively understands of itself or allows for such an understanding, those junctures by which the human being may or is permitted to know of her interaction with the operating universe. Such Reasonable manner can be said to be inherently disembodied knowledge.

This could explain why so many people, perhaps especially in the West, have a low “emotional intelligence”, difficulty understanding emotional connection, as well as how emotion can be involved in how one is able to perceive (know) the world. As well, my explanation could make a contribution to explaining why the modern human being is involved with a world which seems to be responding negatively to human activity despite our best intentions: Becuase our reasonable intentions are necessarily disembodied, the knowledge which is produced through such a naive reasonable state is necessarily maladaptive to the problems it perceives; in other words, the problem itself is already formulated in a mistaken manner of coming upon the true universe.

Ok. Let’s munch on those cookies for a second.

Reason and Emotion part 2: A reason scale?

In part one of this post I ended with the idea of making a kind of “emotion scale”.

In thinking about finishing the post that I started, the one that I am chopping up in to different parts right now, it crossed my mind: I wonder if we could make a “reason scale” similar to how we could chart emotions, as I suggested.

It seems so obvious to me that we would be able to chart intensity of emotion regardless of what emotion is being felt. I think everyone with little difficulty could understand how they could rate a feeling of emotional intensity on a scale of 1 to 43, 43 meaning that you can no longer function and you will have to be committed. 😁

This morning, though, I was wondering if we could do the same with reason. Would it be possible to get people to rate her some quantity of reason that they might be noticing of them selves at any moment of the day?

I don’t know. Today I think I’m going to go along and there times of the day I’m going to try and gauge myself on a scale of 1 to 43 how reasonable I’m being.

Perhaps where zero on the rreason scale would mean that you are acting so unreasonably that you would have to be committed. 🤪

Maybe you readers might want to try and do the same, just as an exercise.

Can you?

Think about it. Just using this instruction: go through your day and periodically rate you’re reasonable Ness or your reason on a scale of 1 to 43, 1 being low intensity of reason.

What difficulties are you having with this instruction?

What is easy?

Reason and Emotion. part 1

As a budding counselor philosopher I find myself pondering what reason and what emotion might actually be in the determination of the human being in the world.

I might be wrong, and please, anyone who knows any authors or has any suggestions– I don’t think the idea of “reason” has been parsed out. Even when I am writing about reason, I am relying upon two different ideas of what reason is. In general, though, in my philosophy I don’t really have a requirement for the discernment that I’m making right here, because of the way that I address the topic.

But it when it comes to actually applying the practicality of counseling upon a truth of philosophy, I am noticing that I just might have to try and make a distinction.

Of course we have the Kant Kind of reason which really echoes out into time and tradition in both directions of past and future from his point but also in the continuing reverberations as we have supplied for as now I think of him and the reason and the like.

The distinction I’m thinking about — and I’m just kind of playing around with ideas here, kind of using this as a workspace, and if people want to help me with this – totally welcome. There is the kind of philosophy “reason” that we, I think we, think of when we talk about reason philosophically; I think this kind of reason is the thing that most philosophers are considering when they talk about the phenomenon or phenomenology or reflection or any of the kind of continental authors. It is against this philosophical reason that people come to spiritual ideas such as transcendence or “one consciousness” or some sort of universal truth in which we are spiritually a part of or something like that, like a sort of “one spiritual fulfillment of emptiness”. But also the Judaic “unknowable God”. Or the mystical “veil-cloud of unknowing”. As though Reason is “full” existence, and without reason we have what is left: spiritual nothing.

But also just philosophy in general: reason is taken as that mode which is going into philosophical treaties (sp) while also being the object of its reflection, that is the topic of whatever piece. Personally, I think we’ve figured out what this “philosophical reason” is, would it produces, what it does, all that stuff. (but showing this is also part of my work). It may have taken us 250 years or something like that or 2500 years, or 25,0000, depending on what people wanna argue, but I think we have a pretty good picture, a pretty good workable picture. And of course people will continue to say that no we haven’t and so here we going to talk about it some more. I definitely see this “talking about it some more” as a from a Kierkegaard perspective and ask “where is everyone going”? And then I sort of Mark that place of departure where people continue past, and I call that “conventional philosophy”, that philosophical area which “has gone past”.

My work involves establishing parameters to some thing which is understood to not have parameters.

So: reason.

Or: that which has parameters beyond which is not knowable.

The first definition of reason I would say is the philosophical one that I tried to lay out above. It imposes, rejects, reduces, denies and enforces, amongst other matters of discernment. And through those operations allows for ethical choices.

The second definition of reason I would put more as something that I am not doing right now. And I say this in the sense that of course I am using reason right now, but also something else is going on. It is a philosophical non-Sequitur to reduce everything to the sort of physical empirical true one unitive universe that human beings have access to through cognitive ability, for a term. Butt, and I say this as your ass: I am not arguing that there is not such a unitive real universe.

I am not arguing a metaphysical truth. I am looking at what is. Of course there are papers to be written and I’m sure I will write them one day and publish them.

For now what is, what is being, I just go with the phenomenal subject: for another term: Dasien (and sure people can argue all they want that this is not the same as the phenomenological reduction and they can argue all the distinctions between the various ways that authors want to put things. And I concede to that method, and I say that it is not incorrect and that I am not attempting to prove that that method of coming up on real things or discerning real things is somehow false or incorrect. I am simply talking In a different manner, using, what I call, a different method-o-logical basis.)

I just go with it. I understand it as a thing in itself, in the sense of Graham Harman’s object oriented philosophy. You can go read some of his stuff and figure that out. 😜

And for all you phenomenologists out there, the question of how we get outside of the phenomenal correlation, Cedric Nathaniel discusses that in his book “the philosophical hack: the concluding unscientific postscript to event”. And you can buy the first part for three dollars right now! 👽

So likewise I understand reason as a thing in-itself, an object. And then I ask myself what is this reason doing and then I attempt to find out what it actually is by what it is doing. I do not attempt to make an argument about what it is through what it might actually be; like I said go read Graham Harman, my approach is not very dissimilar to what he lays down. (But I don’t think he would say we can find a thing by what it does.)

And once I detach myself from this thing called reason to be able to see this object, this universal object, called reason, Then I am able to notice that it indeed is not a crowning head of human consciousness in a Kabbalistic , Tree of Life, kind of fashion. Like I said, for sure it is, but I’m not talking about it from that standpoint right now.

And so, if reason is not some transcendental-immanent Universo-Hegelian historically real aspect that I can Will or make myself become in alignment with through any sort of the use of reason, then I have to ask myself : what is reason involved with, what is it dependent on in order to achieve this status that appears to everyone as sacrosanct human subjective consciousness?

OK.

So here’s what I’m pondering.

Let us say there was some sort of instrument that we developed to measure emotional states, like a quantitative assessment that we could take a group of people and get data from them, numerical data, as to, say, intensity of emotion in a general sense. Maybe they carry around an app and at various times of the day and they would just rate themselves, say, on a scale of 1 to 43. Of how intense their emotions are at any particular time in the day. It doesn’t matter necessarily what emotion it is; maybe we could even put something in the app about what emotion they think they’re feeling and the intensity, but really we could , I’m just thinking of emotional intensity.

So and then we chart this, we graph it. And we get this chart that has varying numerical representations of the feeling or the intensity of feeling of any emotion over a period of time.

Maybe I’ll leave it here. And do a part 2

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=82cJgPXU-ik#dialog

(Not-so?) New Hypothesis:

Reason is subordinate to emotion. Emotion determines the capacity of reason to apprehend the world. Emotion manifest either as a static state or a fluid state; typically what we associate with Emotion is the fluid state; we notice that when emotion is not fluid that reason as a neutral and uninhibited Avenue towards true things can function As indeed it sees itself : with no irony intended: Reason indeed sees, it views, it’s self as and unaffected identity, it axiomatically and reflexively sees its view as an un-inhibited clear vision.

My hypothesis is that the static state of emotion represents aspects of the world that are offensive to ones being; The shape or condition where the fluidity of emotion rests to thus attain relative stasis gives reason the platform to function, gives reason its field of data as well as its capacity to mean. This is to say that reason only is able to process the view that is allowed by the manifestation or state of emotion that exists for the individual.

The clarity it sees is but the clarity that is allowed by the emotional terrain, The emotional geography, if you will.

.

This is completely opposite of our traditional model of reason. But it could explain why the world manifests in the way It does, particularly in light of how we might be able to view scientific facts.