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….

.

Anxiety and the Common Cold

Relating mental health physical health; anxiety is not the same as having a cold.

… but our current psychological/scientific mental health paradigm would make us believe that it is similar.

Fear and anxiety are often used somewhat interchangeably. Yet in psychological literature, They are not the same. The influential existentialist psychologist Rollo May asks the question whether or not For a client right in front of us, that is as opposed to philosophical speculation, could we be able to discern in the client between their fear, and the anxiety that shows from it.

Fear is fear of something. Where as anxiety has no object.

In my other posts I talk about how popular discourse, popular culture, commandeers or usurps power from originary discourses, from basic meaning. I even put this phenomenon in terms of modernity. It is to identify the modern method to say that what is true becomes real. (Read Alain Badiou for an excellent rendering have this motion.)

Such is the case with anxiety. We always hear and we talk about how I’m “anxious because..”. But that is not really a proper anxiety. I am anxious, really, Becuase I am feeling not becuase.

That is the irony. We want to address and solve our anxiety by finding a fundamental cause of it. The very human and logical method which would say that we need to find a cause of any effect, and then we can address the effect. Very medical model. And indeed, ultimately, often enough really the only thing we can do to solve anxiety is take a Xanax or a Valium or smoke some weed, among other chemical solutions. But that is an entirely different discussion. It doesn’t so much as solve the anxiety as allow us a certain myopia. Well like I said, different discussion.

Similarly, There is a kind of therapeutic intervention or approach, called positive psychology, which views anxiety, and indeed all mental health issues, as having an object that we can address. If you can address and alter the object of the thing that’s getting in the way of mental health, then your mental health can become better.

I submit that this approach to mental health stems from a want for mental health to be the same as physical health, where I have a pain in my gut, I can point to my inflamed liver, for example.

And this is OK. All I’m really saying is we need to get more discerning about what we are talking about when we talk about mental health. People who address mental health should be more particular and identifying as to what they are really addressing so far when they talk about or assume that there is this general human being who is having mental health issues and here they are going to propose a remedy for it. I feel it creates great confusion, and actually works to perpetuate problem more than it really works towards significant help. It might help some people, but it would probably help exponentially more people if people who are proposing to help around mental issues were more specific about who they’re actually addressing. That is, as opposed to merely saying that I am proposing a solution to “anxiety”.

I hope that resonates for you readers.

The more astute reckoning of anxiety understands that anxiety has no object. We generally put this in the sense of why is someone that would have anxiety when they’re just walking down the sidewalk. Sure, we could ask the person and the person could come up with a number of fears.And, we could say that this person is

Having anxiety because of their over concern with all sorts of various fears, then I’m going to be hit by a car, that a dog is going to run out and bite me, that I might step my toe, etc. And, we could say that this person is having anxiety because of their over concern with all sorts of various fears, then I’m going to be hit by a car, that a dog is going to run out and bite me, that I might stub my toe, etc.

But then what we have as a person listing a series of fears. It doesn’t matter whether they are unfounded or founded, because indeed everyone lives their life under the umbrella of having to be concerned about the various contingencies that could arise out of nowhere.

The person suffering from this kind of anxiety cannot be said to be suffering because of their fears, because of their irrational fears, so to speak.

So it is that anxiety is not like the common cold. We definitely can point to various objects that manifest the cold itself and its symptoms. We can address the symptoms and help the main object of the cold itself to go away. We can even directly address the object of the cold through various types of supplements.

And yet in mental health, when we approach anxiety in this way, more often the anxiety persists, mutates, comes up with other reasons, other fears Two at once explain their anxiety while also ironically arguing for it. It is as though we have an institution that does not wish for anxiety to go away, for a perpetually in forms it’s constituency that anxiety has an object that we can solve or address through the modern methods.

And just perhaps all to coincidently, it is modern methods that make people a lot of money.

The Modern Complex

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Let’s see if I can explain my ambiguity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

x

… 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.

Being Really Mentally Healthy

Here is my question about health in general.

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

Here’s another one.

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

And, just one more for good measure.

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

x

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

Reposting How To Save…the world?

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

How To Save Democracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lol. Sorry, my attitude is showing. 😝

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

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

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

What does it mean to start within oneself?

Why do we need to confront anything there?

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

Now. 



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

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

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

What are we to do? 

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

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

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

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. 

Psychology and philosophy, part four

My point of addressing this topic was not simply to go on about my anecdotal development of psychology and philosophy.

I am always embedded in context, in a story, and so maybe that’s why I’m always contextualizing many things I have to say in the story of why I have to say them or why I am saying it in that way. Actually, I’ve had to learn how to be more to the point, as my friends will tell you.

And we could go back to some of my other posts, and a couple of my papers, that talk about the efficient cause as the usual conventional understanding to which everything must answer. And I call this orientation upon the efficient cause reality.

Whereas, what is true of the situation is actually its form, and that these forms constitute every object that exists in the universe. The story to me concerns more the formal cause. I take the formal cause it’s more substantial and meaningful than the efficient cause.

Anyways, that’s not really what I’m making this post about either!

It was actually to talk a little bit about Lacan. I would say 85% of my understanding of this psychologist comes through Zizek. The rest comes through various commentaries that philosophers have made and then a little bit and reading him. So, my version may be a little skewed, but then again, my whole philosophy up on things is that, basically, it doesn’t really matter because every opinion on every author no matter how well Read a person is is always skewed; and, I would argue, it is always the same amount of skew.

But also I’m not here to make an argument about how everyone’s skewed Ness upon a text is the same amount of variation.

Because even if I don’t know by heart all the inns and outs of Lacanian  psychotherapy, I know pretty much what he’s talking about and how it goes. What I want to talk about is that there are no psychotherapists who are Lacanian. It seems like everyone who wants to talk about psychology is a philosopher, not a psychiatrist or a psychologist. Now, I’m sure there are many Freudians and people who like Lacan theory as their basis of practice, I would imagine somewhere in New York and Europe maybe, but for some reason I have never come across one practicing psychologist or psychiatrist who knows anything about Lacan or even cares about Freud except as some sort of mystical founder of psychotherapy, and of course, the structure of the consciousness.

That is very curious to me.

But as of late, as I’m reading Lacan’s ecrits, and as I am getting more into actually practicing psychotherapy, I am realizing some things about the mental health world.

A big one is that pretty much every psychoanalytic theory that I’ve come across in my masters program, Lacan talked about from a theoratical standpoint.

I think that is so weird, because none of my professors and none of my instructors know anything at all about Lacan. Ive asked.

And that, to me, points out some thing that I think it’s very significant between Philosophy and what we know in general as psychology — indeed in one of Lacans lectures that has been reprinted, he basically points out the same curiosity in the field, albeit, much mire subtly than i am:

Namely that psychology as a practice, if I can generalize to include all the other kinds of psychotherapy in general, all the theories, all the practices and approaches, And despite what each approach would want to say is their theoretical grounding, all derive from a philosophical understanding that goes way beyond and way deeper and more thoroughly than the practitioners would even suggest to indicate as their basis of practice and theoretical understanding.

it’s kind of weird.

I don’t mean to say that Lacan had it all; but he does point out how the practice of therapy tends to want to just stick with a system of assertions and not employ those systems in the practice of investigating an uncovering what is really happening. which is to say, people want a fixed understanding of things. And most people, even people who we consider are very intelligent and educated practitioners, do not use their intelligence and knowledge as a basis to investigate what is actually occurring in front of them. Rather, most people use it as a basis merely to assert what they understand is supposed to be true.

Lacan what’s an advocate towards a kind of non-systemization of practice. Even as most of us tend to understand that he has this great philosophical psychoanalytical system. Actually he was just constantly investigating and constantly changing and adjusting his ideas for what he was coming upon as the years went by. 

OK. I’ll do part five in a little bit.x

Everything exists.

Nothing is something.

This statement holds all the possible ramifications of the assessment of Being to its orientations. And from the dual meaning that arises in this statement, all problems and solutions exist.

It is not merely meaning, because that represents only one of the two orientations then.

But meaning is the main issue through which, if the truth is to be understood, must be confronted.

Something is always something else; nothing is always something.

It is the question of orientation upon the universe. Less what meaning is made, more when that meaning is challenged.

Orientation upon things concerns two basic questions;

what are we dealing with?

What are we trying to accomplish?

If these two questions are not stated, then they are assumed. We thus have one thing we are dealing with: Reality is thus the teleo-ontological assumption of a common sense of being human and the universe.

Without this assumption implicit to every statement and thought, no reality arises. It is then just a bunch of things doing stuff; reality is complicit with an agenda.

So then the next question involved in that truth — it is a truth because no argument can be made against it without implying that its meaning is operative:

What are we trying to accomplish by the assumed common arena ?

For this:

We are dealing with the truth of reality for the purpose of Being mentally healthy.

This is a anthropology of philosophy.