A Theory of (counseling) Truth

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.

More later.

High Functioning Anxiety? Some philosophical notes of the modern Aria

www.huffpost.com/entry/high-functioning-anxiety-signs_l_5cd42647e4b09f321bdcc6d0

I ponder why mental health as a topic has become so prominent in our experiential awareness, concern and vocabulary.

From a philosophical perspective, it seems sensible. For, the prominent 20th century philosophy was existentialism, and thus is based in the preponderant existential anxiety.

However, aside from the more obvious considerations where history makes sense in light of current issues, and the issues make sense from historical sense, could something else be happening?

Is it that we as human beings are becoming more aware of our situation?

Or could it be that we are but filling out the meaning that has been given us?

Or both?

Irony and history

The most substantial philosophical component of modern existence is irony. From a leading edge philosophical standpoint, Everything that we understand as knowledge falls into a weighted selective bias that we call subjectivity. Subjectivity, for a term, is that aspect of existence that rejects the truth of knowledge, of our situation, for the sake of having a real world, reality.

This then is known as phenomenological meaning, and it constitutes the epistemological position of any knowledge that is able to be posited and thus known. This was not a condition of all knowledge through history, rather, it is the particular condition by which and in which we are able to know anything presently.

Hence, the issues of our day of what constitutes the legitimacy for truth and the political polemics that do not seem to be resolvable through open critical discourse. All modern knowledge is ironic, when you begin to think about it openly, critically, and honestly.

High Functioning Anxiety

It would seem, then, that what we see and experience in ourselves to say that someone might ‘suffer’ from high anxiety and yet still be able to function well, could be just that we are expected to deal with life in this way. We function as we are supposed to, yet education brings about a self reflection that is epistemologically informed by rejection of what is true of ourselves as a de facto modern agent. We find this is Jean Paul Sartre. That is, faced with brute existence and the meaningless found therein, we revolt from it an assert our free will to create meaning.

It could very well be, though, that we are this way — anxious, as a society but as well an an individual — because we have been told how to see and understand ourselves and this manner thus fulfills its teleology, and we find thus a mental health pandemic and according ‘solutions’ to the ‘problem’.

Further, it may well be that Sartre, and his ilk, were wrong ethically, and from the Kierkegaardian standpoint in which those 20th century philosopher so uncritically saw themselves. They read our situation and perpetuated it, justified it, as opposed to taking a critical view of it. The problem with 20th century existential ism is that it posits that the universe is meaningless and that human beings are the ones that make meaning. This is the seminal statement of modern ideology and why we must say that to live in the modern world is to live as problem.

The essential and unavoidable problem can be stated as this: To say that existence has no meaning, and thus it is incumbent upon human beings to create for themselves purpose and meaning, is to say that purpose and meaning is nothing.

In other words, the formulation is incorrect.

Perhaps it is some sort of intuitive understanding that the method by which we are understanding ourselves in the universe is incorrect which constitutes the anxiety we know so well.

How could anyone have confidence in the meaning that they are making if amidst this meaning making the underlying knowledge of such activity is that it is pointless, useless, and means nothing? 

And yet, the modern problem can be extended to be formulated as such:

in so much as I might become aware of this paradox, my anxiety is only increased, and I am compelled to do more things to distract myself from this dreadful condition of knowing.

Truth versus Reality as a question of method Versus meaning

Rather than asking how to solve our anxiety and accorded social issues, The more effective question as to overcoming this self-justifying anxious philosophical reflection of society (ideology and spirituality) could thus be to ask how could this be the case. Why in the sense of logistics as opposed to why as is what is the historical cause.

In other words, The short of it is:

Are you able to understand your situation as a truth instead of a product ?

What do you say?

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 Great Divide: Was The Handmaiden’s Tale Nonfiction?

apple.news/AvymzKonZSYuFKxUS0EHwHQ

Intelligence !! That, is the question.

I am not that dense to believe that any piece of news is Above pure propaganda. This link to article is by the guardian, and I do like to think this news source, though leftist, has its neutral facts in order and is reporting neutrally, with a liberal bent. 

That’s what I like to believe. But I know it’s false.

However, I do think they’re reporting on some thing that’s actually occurring, somewhere, and somehow similar to what they are reporting on.

And yes my opinions are biased also. But I think this goes to my point I’m going to make here about intelligence.

The Notion of Intelligence Has No Substantial Basis for Legitimacy

The notion of intelligence itself must be an inaccurate way to identify a human being.

I say this because my first reaction to this article is that human beings are not intelligent. Lol

What I mean by this is, their opinion makes no sense.lol

And what I mean by this is that they are stupid. lol

I could go on, but those last three sentences don’t really say anything at all except that I feel that I myself I am intelligent, my opinions make sense, and that I’m not stupid. Any definition that I would want to bring up around those terms are necessarily biased in my favor.

Notice that my post one or two ago ask the question: where does legitimacy reside?

It largely comes out of “intellectual/ethical” divides such as the arguments around birth control.

I have to admit that whatever these people are, that they are so adamant about not getting abortions antiabortion and such, must not be the same type of human that I am. I mean this in the sense that regardless of what seems intellectually sound to me, that is, that everyone should have the right to their own opinions and be able to voice them, Obviously the people who are “pro life”, as if strangely enough, I am not for living and for allowing people to live how they want to live, Do not hold this opinion that I have that everyone should be allowed to uphold their own ideals ethically about life and how to live it. Obviously that maxim only goes so far for them. Ultimately, and I would say due to what this ethical maxim means to me, again, namely, that everyone should be able to uphold their own ideals and live life as they see fit, The people who are prolife do not agree with me about what this simple statement says. And this is to say that they agree with it so long as you agree with them about this one particular issue; it doesn’t really matter what it is.

It’s like the “great divide” of ideology. There is no source of legitimacy from which we could find an intellectual or ethical common ground. Even if we believe in the United States system of government, ultimately we have to admit that the charge on the White House and the Trump in whatever they might be called, again only believe in the common humanity so far as everyone has to believe in the basic ideals they believe.

I don’t think I need to run this in the ground. I think you get my point.

The Theory of the Logistical Basis for Ethics and the Two Routes

This is why I say that ethics is not something that Arises innately within us. Because of the great divide, it appears more true to say that ethics are trained into us. Surprise!

Really the great divide must be how we are oriented upon how ethics arises within oneself. 

If I feel that I am instilled with the ethics that extends over the human creature as a global manifestation, by, for any other term, God or deity or “natural morality”, then what we have in these kinds of debates is really a battle between religious zealots. For, even if I am the most liberal minded atheist, if I am also pro life then I am believing in some transcendent yet substantial and foundational “should” that encompasses the human being as a species.

 For example, there are plenty of people that believe that we should try to help every human being no matter what due to the fact that they are human. I’m not sure how that kind of morality is not based in a religious type of formulation. I’m not sure how that relies on something that is not transcendentally encompassing to the category. 

Ethics that’s always argues, in the end, for a logistical basis of its epistemological foundation Rather than a transcendental one.

We Have Never Been Modern

We get to this point and ultimately we have to begin to notice the sociologists discussion Bruno Latour we have never been modern.  specifically, he points to inherent contradictions in the modern way of conceptualizing things, but also the contradictory motion that must be in play to uphold any one of the positions.

For example, we can argue that no God exists, and yet as I have shown above, at the same time that I am making the argument that there is no God, I am nevertheless relying upon a transcendence that is forming my ability to have such knowledge. If I move then to define what transcendence is, proposing to rebut your argument that I am relying upon some sort of God for my proposal, then I have entered into the contradiction that I propose to be solving. It is these types of contradictory positions/motions that the author draws upon to make the suggestion that this is what modernity is, but in order to come to such a critique we must never have been modern. 

The Two Routes, again

So, I come back to the problem inherent to the issue of abortion in America. There is a reason why our form of government must pose “one nation under God”. Presently, in order to govern modern minded people, a governing body must reside in that space of irony. This is what our legal system is based on, standing on the fulcrum of modern contradiction.

However, the most pertinent to our case here and what this article represents. If indeed ethics is only a logistical solution and not an ideal solution, not a solution which arises inherent to the universe and or inherent to the human being itself, then we have a huge dilemma.

The logistical rationale for ethics thus argues that there is no human being that has inherent worth. That a human being’s worth is ultimately in relation to The prevailing ideology.

Hence, The basis of the logistical approach to ethics. The problem of ethics has Little to do with whether someone has inherent worth; it has to do with the fact that I can never totally eliminate my opponents or ethical enemies. As I posted elsewhere, because I can never get rid of people who, by my estimation, Are not intelligent, nonsensical, stupid, I thereby have to reflect back upon myself how I am going to live comfortably and happily with them.

 Disgusting, right?





What Does This Have to do with Mental Health?

Mental health either is the effort to bring the individual back into the ideological fold, whatever that is.

Or,

Mental health is the effort to help the individual find themselves despite ideological maxims.x

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.

Philosophical Mental Health Contemplation of the Day, part one

This is a philosophical contemplation of mental health, so it’s going to be a little longer than just a tip.

Anxiety is probably the most foundational element of mental health. As the early investigators into psychic and mental phenomenon noted, there are really only two adverse mental phenomenon that we are really concerned with: to use somewhat archaic terms, we have neurosis and psychosis.

In order to give context to this mental health contemplation today, we need to understand these two basic principles; then we will get into the more contemporaneously relevant third issue next post.

Neurosis, very basically thinking, is anxiety. it refers to conditions as, what Sigmund Freud termed, “amicable to the couch”. Aside from the more contemporary conflations of neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology, it is from the simple statement that pretty much every approach to psychotherapy stems. It is the principle which basically says that the client has the solution. We as counselors are really helping the person in their process of coming to their own solution. The couch, in this frame, was the actual couch that a patient would come in for Freud and others, and lay down and start talking, basically in free association, with little or no intervention or prompt from Freud or the psychoanalyst.

Now, this might be kind of a disillusionment for many people who want to go to the psychologist and get their mental disorders fixed; I would say that this kind displacement, where I am trying to get “fixed”, is merely a contemporary and modern phenomenon of mental health, and behaves more like a religious rite than it does behave towards any true recognition of what we’re actually dealing with. Hence, ironically, the idea that the problem is the problem. But that is another conversation to have.

Anyways…

Psychosis, on the other hand, names those that Freud and others noted who were ‘not amicable to the couch’. What he meant by this is that he encountered certain patients which no amount of talking would help alleviate the issue they are Attempting to deal with.

In our more contemporary terms, “Amicable to the couch” as they talked about it then is really what we call an ability to “reality check”. People who are psychotic do not have an ability to test themselves, thier perceptions and thoughts, against reality. The term “schizophrenia” Was an early term Developed by early investigators to account for persistent acute psychosis, to indicate that there was something structurally, physically abnormal about this persons brain. Early neurologist believed that all forms of mental abnormality are reflecting a structural physical abnormality of the brain. That the structure of the brain is the cause of all mental phenomena.

While there are some correlations in this structural physical situation to mental health issues, not all mental health issues can be reduced to one’s neural structure or as we like to talk about nowadays, the chemistry. A more enlightened and current view is that while there may be a propensity involved in the structure of neural tissue to yield various mental health ailments, more likely it is the environment which activates such abnormality or dysfunction. However, this is to shed light upon the difference between psychosis and neurosis; The early neurologists and their Scientific congregants were using psychotic patients in order to argue back that neurotic patients have likewise a structural physical chemical aberration in their brain.

The point that I am making is that we cannot be sure what is the actual “cause”. Classical neurology, as indeed anachronistic approaches to mental health still advocate and it’s absolute form, Propose that all cause of mental issues is always neural structure. The issue nowadays is no one can be really sure if understanding this cause actually helps us to a solution.

What we find when we actually look honestly and openly at what is occurring, as opposed to relying upon the “historical and traditional theories”, Is that what is normal and abnormal so far is neuroses does not fit neatly into the model which finds structural differences between psychotic patients and “normal”. The truth of the matter is that there is this huge gray area — no pun intended, or maybe there is! — that the Nuro chemical model of mental dysfunction is merely promoting upon an exploiting. The Nuro chemical model of mental disorder as applied to the traditional neurotic is not taking account of the facts. It is merely drawing upon a theory and imposing that upon what they speculate could be the case. Such practitioners “see“ what the theory dictates rather than having what they see shape their theory.

The Borderline

One could argue that the main problem involved in our current state of mental health is the Borderline.

The idea of a borderline personality disorder comes out of the initial polemical situating of mental health issues. This is to say, neurotics can find their solution through their own process facilitated by someone who is skilled in allowing for that process. Whereas psychotics, and it’s classical sense, cannot find their own solution through this kind of self process.

The notion of a borderline personality was derived because it seemed like there were some people that would come in who appeared neurotic, Yet the process of their self reflection Appeared to only work sometimes, at that, not very well.

Ponder: what of these three categories would you say you fall into?

More in a bit….

.

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.