Can brain anatomy and function account for psychiatric conditions? – A New Vision for Mental Health

Can brain anatomy and function account for psychiatric conditions? – A New Vision for Mental Health
— Read on www.newvisionformentalhealth.com/2022/09/26/can-brain-anatomy-and-function-account-for-psychiatric-conditions/

—-Here she is going a little deeper…

So good !

👽

x

RIDE THE TIGER | The Genetics of Mental Illness | PBS

http://www.pbs.org/ride-the-tiger/home/ RIDE THE TIGER Genetics plays a pivotal role in diagnosing mental illnesses. Scientists now believe many …

RIDE THE TIGER | The Genetics of Mental Illness | PBS

Nice.

and my Comment.

When it comes to mental illnesses, we are scared. I don’t think there’s anything more generally frightening than having a mental disorder. At least if you get cancer, or some sort of terminal illness, you know what the fear is: It’s that you’re going to die, actually cease body functioning dead.

When it comes to mental issues, the fear really is that we don’t know what the hell is going on. Not only the person who might have mental issues, but the empirical scientists who are studying it and trying to treat it, really have no clue what’s going on. Despite any of the arguments, this is a fact that can’t be denied — or, it can only be denied through repetitive assertion of progress pressed against hope.

I gotta say, whenever I hear things about how medicine or science might be progressing in the understanding of mental issues, I get kind of excited.

Even treatment options, some of them seem really exciting and helpful. when a treatment makes sense to me I get excited about learning it and helping someone with it, for sure.

Yet, there’s always the sour with the sweet in mental health. This is to say that however excited I might be about whatever new thing that someone is telling us about having to do with mental illness, knowledge of it, treatment of it, once I begin to explore what these people have to say, I inevitably realize that they’re 80% bewildered.

This kind of snake oil approach to mental health, where the placebo effect is functioning on such a grand scale, using statistics and headlines and basically driving good news off of the fear that just exists everywhere around mental health, really drives my philosophical work, but as well really, drives me to want to be there for people that are reaching out for help.

The Nay-Sayers.

Part of what I feel makes me genuine and effective as a mental health practitioner, if I say so myself —

— as I am saying so myself, but colleagues and instructors and mentors have said things very similar so I’m not basing this off of my own ego — that is, not entirely!!! —

– is that I understand the need to believe, but I also try to filter out the bullshit. But not only this; I feel one of the significant things to helping people with mental issues is involved with the attempt to realize that there is no clear reconciliation between mere belief and bullshit, which is to say, there is no sorting it out except in the way that someone actually sorts it out. There is no “pure belief”, and then the truth that lay behind the “pure bullshit”, when we’re approaching it in a certain light.

And I’m speaking to those who would be offended by me talking about the truth of the situation being that the scientists in this video, indeed the video makers, are trying to give us a certain amount of hope. The short video is really kind of saying like, hey, this terrible mental disorder has some sort of foundation in genes, and we’re working out to sort out just how that might be the case so people in the future, future generations may not have to deal with it.

Ok.

However, what they’re really saying is that they don’t know what the hell is going on.

I know that mental health relies heavily on a person’s belief, not only about themselves, but about the world, and about whether or not someone might be able to help them.

The reason why these scientists will not be able to find a gene that has to do with bipolar, or really any sort of mental disorder, is because of the history of mental disorders, which is to say, the way that “scientist/psychiatrist” came up with the idea that there must be something similar to mental disease as there is physical disease.

If I break a bone in my body we can point to the bone and we can say, there it is, and this is how we fix it.

Mental health, and mental disorder, is more like a person sitting in a room coughing. What is the cause of their coughing?  is it the smoke in the room? Is it the vapors coming off of the oil freshly painted walls with no windows? Is it the cilia in the lining of the lungs? Is it that they just took a bong hit and they’ve never smoked weed in their life? Is it because they smoke too much weed throughout their life? Did a fly just fly down their throat?

Now, this is a loose analogy, but it goes to the point of the difference between a physical disease and a mental health disease: 

There is nothing that is bipolar that we can truly find. It’s just a name that we give to a bunch of people that say certain things about their experience.

If you had 100 people called bipolar from whatever objective kind of disorder name that we wanna give them, and you go to talk to each of these hundred people about what is happening with them, you’ll find that there’s 100 different types of bipolar, and at one end, the person’s description will look nothing like the person at the other end. 

In mental issues, the thing that drives them together to cause scientists to look for a gene behind the mental illness is utterly one of faith. And not in the bad way you are thinking, by the way.

As we go down this route, because for sure science will continue going down this route, what will happen is you’ll have a whole group, perhaps a whole generation of people, that are calling themselves bipolar, that is are understood as bipolar, or any other mental issue, all going towards this science of curing the problem, and what will happen is a lifetime of just as much problem as they had before. It might be a different set of problem, it might appear a little bit differently than 20 years ago or whatever, but it’ll just be another set of problems.

The perfect example is what happens to people with the more acute mental disorders who take the antipsychotic medicines for their schizophrenia or their bipolar or whatever. After a time their body starts to react in certain ways. In general, they call this problem tardive dyskinesia. In fact, it is so prevailing now that we have advertisements on the TV on cable on the Internet marketing more medication to help people with their tardive dyskinesia that they’ve gotten from taking medicines for their “bipolar”.

In an ironic twist, it is actually the scientists who are the naysayers. They are saying “no” there is a thing an actual disease of the human body called xyz mental illness.  Their faith, leads them to solve one problem, and then another problem opens up. But of course, it may be easier to deal with the second problem, but one has to wonder just what does bipolar, or any name of mental disease, is, if it just leads one down a long chain of more problems. 

Solutions.

I think some of the problem that maybe some of my readers might have is that I sound like I’m naysaying all the science and all the stuff that goes into helping people with these mental issues. I am not.

What I’m saying is that I’m a realist. The fact of the matter is that no matter what initial mental illness may present itself, it is just something that the person is gonna have to deal with in whatever way that they’re dealing with it, or whatever way they don’t deal with it. There is not gonna be any magic pill for the people who suffer. There may be a magic pill that gets them 70% of the way, but anyone who suffers from mental issues will tell you that medicines never cure the disease. They only help with getting the person to a place where they’re able to decide that they need to deal with it themselves. And that is good ! Like I said: I am not a hater.

But what does that say about the genetic basis of mental disorder? 

Drugs and Reality

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with doing drugs. I think the question is personal. And I think the question is just, for our modern day, what drugs do I take.

I’m not being sarcastic or ironic, I’m not being pessimistic or cynical. In my blog I try to deal with things as they actually are.

Just as in my practice I try to deal with people as they actually are.

And often, the way things actually are do not match up with the way people actually are.

Maybe that’s the true problem.

🧠🌝❤️

Theory of Mind

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

“In psychology, theory of mind refers to the capacity to understand other people by ascribing mental states to them (that is, surmising what is happening in their mind). These states may be different from one’s own states and include beliefs, desires, intentions, emotions, and thoughts…”

*

I believe I may have made a post about this while ago, but here is another one.

I wonder if I am able to have a theory of mind, in this respect, and decide that the theory is only that: an idea that I have that makes explanations and inferences about others’ behavior.

What would that mean if I was able to live and exist effectively with full cognizance that my theory of mind is both real and not real?

“Theory of mind is a theory insofar as the behavior of the other person, such as their statements and expressions, is the only thing being directly observed. The mind and its contents cannot be observed directly, so the existence and nature of the mind must be inferred.[7] The presumption that others have a mind is termed a theory of mind because each human can only intuit the existence of their own mind through introspection, and no one has direct access to the mind of another so its existence and how it works can only be inferred from observations of others. It is typically assumed that others have minds analogous to one’s own, and this assumption is based on the reciprocal, social interaction, as observed in joint attention,[8] the functional use of language,[9] and the understanding of others’ emotions and actions.[10] Having theory of mind allows one to attribute thoughts, desires, and intentions to others, to predict or explain their actions, and to posit their intentions…”

Paper: Possibility of Change in Homosexual Orientation A study of research supportive of Change Allowing Therapies | Dr. Ann E Gillies

Possibility of Change in Homosexual Orientation A study of research supportive of Change Allowing Therapies
— Read on www.academia.edu/50333715/Possibility_of_Change_in_Homosexual_Orientation_A_study_of_research_supportive_of_Change_Allowing_Therapies

Of course, I do not believe nor advocate that any sex or gender practice or identity should be considered pathological. I believe exactly the opposite in principle.

However, we should be open minded enough to consider that some people may have personal challenges in their developed practices of identity. Someone could be homosexual and be uncomfortable because they feel they have to do heterosexual practices, just as much as someone may be heterosexual and feel that they’re attracted to their same sex. Similarly trans and gender fluid.

No one in general, as human beings, should impose standards of mental health or pathology upon people to “correct” how they are.

As I develop in an upcoming paper, the standard for intervention is needed help.

As counselors, we should accept that people may come to us with problems of identity, whatever they are, and be willing to look at it with an open mind and consider the possibilities involved for helping them.

 *

Btw:

In case anyone has not noticed.

I feel that psychology in general is often not very helpful for looking at things as they are, nor excepting what is actually occurring. So, I have a sort of natural antagonism to these decidedly modern, empirical, and scientific approaches to what it is to be human and it’s accorded health to its mentality.

This is not to say that I don’t approach those empirical sciences with a similar open mind to possibility, nor that I don’t find their efforts informative or useful. Just that one should know in reading my blog about counseling and helping people that I feel that psychology tends to reflexively impose a drastic violence of bias upon people it supposes to work to help, and I feel responsible to challenge its move of explanatory power and direction.

One can Read my upcoming paper about orientations upon mental health. 

On Exploring Emotional Intelligence from a Linguistic Perspective

Exploring Emotional Intelligence from a Linguistic Perspective
— Read on www.academia.edu/53579692/Exploring_Emotional_Intelligence_from_a_Linguistic_Perspective

—–

I disagree with this author‘s particular use of supporting examples because they detract from his point about emotional intelligence, but as well, linguistics involvement with mental well being.

*

What are we trying to accomplish?

This has to be the first question involved with any statement that’s supposed to say something factual. For, even the very idea of there being fundamental and basic facts is based in an assumption about what are we trying to do by referring to facts. This is not to say that there are not facts, or that everything’s relative, but more to suggest that in so much as I am referring to facts, I need to be clear about what I’m trying to accomplish.

*

So let me be clear: facts exist truly. They don’t have anything to do with what meaning I’m making out of them (except the fact of meaning making) as though the fact that I might be making meaning dispels the potential for there to be facts. For, How could I be making meaning then? Since there would be no factual basis to say that I am merely making meaning.  The point is redundant, as I discuss elsewhere.

Semantics as a basis for discussion is overrated, ‘overmined’ as Graham Harman might say, and to call upon semantics as some sort of universal fact of being human in the world is really to call upon and assumed project about what human beings are supposed to be involved with; which is to say, if you are A human being then you are involved with the world.

I disagree with this giant assumption. And again, this is not to say that the world of human beings is made up with a bunch of random opinions based on personal experience and semantics. I am saying that that assumption is involved with a certain type of project, it assumes certain things, and it moves people toward a certain goal that is unspoken.

My work has to do with laying a foundation by which people will be able begin to speak about what is unspoken before they assume what is common.

*

OK.

To the reposted essay.

I agree that the greater emotional intelligence a person has, the greater lexicon to describe emotion, the more access a person has to who and what they are. I’m not sure that really this short linked essay is really saying that though. It seems to be saying that if you are a human being then you should have a greater lexicon so you can achieve more in the world.

Think of all the assumptions that go into the difference that I point out there. Then when you read the essay, think of the huge weight of assumptions that are going into just the fact that he would write a paper in such a way.

For, while it may be a nice thing to be able to achieve, to be a high achiever, I severely doubt that more than 20% of people in the world ever become a high achiever no matter how much they will try, or even if they will want to. So, to talk about some sort of common human being that should have any emotional quotient of intelligence, and that achievement is the reason why someone should have a greater lexicon to expressed their emotions, kind of argues the point that you’re a really fucked up individual: it communicates to you implicitly that you are screwed up, in need of improvement due to your inherent ignorance and you need to do better, that you’re screwed up and you’re probably not a high achiever.

I’m not sure that being a high achiever really matters beyond the studies. But maybe that’s because I’m a high achiever. I don’t really know. I’m fairly sure that most people really couldn’t care less whether they are high achiever or not, and those who want to be a high achiever could probably care even less because they’re already on their way to achieving very well. Again: redundant (discussed elsewhere).

*

Read on if you really want to know what I’m saying here, because, nevertheless, for sure there is a vast majority of people that reckon themselves to achievement; I’m not saying that they are incorrect, nor am I saying that people who speak to measurements of achievement are wrong.

I am merely pointing out facts about the situation, as an example of how we might be able to discern differences in projects that are otherwise assumed.

The Point of this Comment.

The reason for this really came out of the repost authors examples that he uses to support his short paper. I’m not sure that he needed to put those examples in there on one hand, but on the other hand that he felt that those examples supported his paper really says some thing about why I would not want to have any emotional intelligence at all, if we’re gonna be honest here. 🙂

Thus we get into the linguistic Symantec trope that pervades much of academic scientific promotion, at least in the area of psychology maybe.

He uses two examples. One is that a particular African culture cannot see blue simply because they don’t have the word for blue. The other example is that another culture has difficulty with discerning, for example, 13, since it lies somewhere in between 10 and 15 and they only have a lexicon that deals with fives, I guess.

I totally understand this idea. But I’m not sure it’s true. It draws upon facts, but then uses its own Symantec to make an argument within the idealism that everything is relative (semantically). And the proof he, they, usually give is that in the production of communication I would fail to communicate to someone else that I understood what blue was. And this goes to the traditional academic trope of the economy of language.

Follow me here; I am not saying that that particular way to organize knowledge is wrong or bad. I am saying that it is being unclear as to its motives, because the project it is involved with is “bettering humanity” and this is assumed as an ethical project mandate. I’m just really not sure what this humanity that is trying to get better really is. It’s not wrong that we’re trying to make a better humanity, but I suppose I am making the argument that it moves so fast into the future that we really don’t get very far at all because no one is really telling me what it’s about let alone what it really is.

Take the number 13 to someone who doesn’t have a lexicon which includes 11,12,13,14.

Does this mean that If I give a person 13 gold coins that they either believe that they have 10 or 15? I would say no. It doesn’t really matter what they can talk about, and the language that they are using is not really expressive of what they are thinking. Of course, we can’t know exactly what they are thinking because of the limitation of language, but that does not mean that if I give them 13 coins that they do not understand that they have 13 coins. We never know exactly what someone is thinking, it doesn’t matter whether or not we have the word for it, because this happens to everyone at all times, in so much as they are a subject (see my discussions elsewhere). 

The number 13 is a purely arbitrary definition about what is present. What actually occurs is more significant than whether or not 13 is being able to expressed.

Keep following me here…

This is why the elucidation of what project is being assumed is important.

Because this person in the essay of the re-post is really talking about mental health. However, they are doing it under a rubric that it must fit into all knowledge perfectly, as though there is this one common knowledge in which all humanity is involved entirely, and yet this assumption is being talked about as if everything is relative to the language we are able to use or have access to. ?? 

This is where his essay falls to the side so far as he might be talking about something specific.

The point that he is making about emotional intelligence, and its relation to linguistics and semantics, doesn’t have anything to do really with whether or not I can discern 13 or the color blue. This is just actually talking about mental health, if I’m actually talking about a person sense of self in the world. 

So it is that I made a super long comment, went on a kind of parabolic journey, to come back to the point that his two examples really detract from the point of his essay.

If I’m trying to help a person develop more comprehensive lexicon to express their emotions, I’m not doing it so they can show up in the world more consistently, so then they can achieve more. I’m doing it so they have a better sense of self, so the issues that they struggle with may become more clear to them. This doesn’t have anything to do with Whether they understand what “consternation” is. Because for sure, as opposed to what the author suggests, at times they might be feeling consternation, but it is that they were unable to express themselves and know them selves that specifically, and so they use the next best meaning, they use the next best way to describe themselves and to therefore act.

It is not that consternation does not exist, but that instead they behave, say, with anger, or they get mad at themselves, or they think less of themselves, or they act out, among any number a things.

For sure, consternation exists. It is the discrepancy between their understanding and actuality which is manifesting the difficulty. It is not mere lexicon and semantic; if it were then there would be no issue. The person simply wouldn’t understand what blue was, and would go about their way perfectly fine. It wouldn’t matter to her what blue was because anyone referring to blue would be simply set aside and described in some other way.

Hence It is due to the discrepancy, it is due to an assumption about what is proper to the universe that is at root of the problem itself.  

The greater point is that there is no viable common project. If we are speaking of emotional intelligence in the context of mental health, then certain supportive examples fail that project, and to use them thus shows a failure of the effort itself. We need a manner to be able to discern these invisible ruptures of epistemological continuum.

So it is that we need a manner by which to be explicit — in the same way as a deficit emotional lexicon yields aggrevation of problem — about what we are up to.





Unexpected synchronous object semantics

Be Your Own Rock

Everyday

Listen

……

Sometimes I feel that I am being drawn forward. And other times I am just making my Way, doing what I do because that’s what I’m doing.

Presently I am going through a phase of the latter.

I am not sure that I ever construct meaning intentionally. I never purposely sit down and make meaning from things.

Rather, I might be perplexed, or feel out of sorts, even lost, at times.

Sometimes I do ponder things like dreams, and a meaning will show itself.

Other times I’m not thinking about anything. And meaning still shows itself…

Such is the case when I opened my WordPress reader 5 minutes ago.

The beginning of this post shows the titles of the first three posts that were in my Reader.

——>

Naysayers and reductionist psychological Science congregants may point to all the studies about how the mind will make meaning out of anything.

And yet, the conclusion of those kinds of studies never tell us how we are able to come to that conclusion, nor why that conclusion should be any less random than the meaning that the subject gained from a series of random images or words.

If a person has faith enough to set aside the psychological proof that a mind is just assembling random meanings into a string of meaning at all times, then I really have nothing to say to them philosophically, because they have not looked deep enough. They have only stopped where it suits them, as I say, for their faith. I have no criticism or argument to give them; for why would I critique or bombard someone’s faith?

Nonetheless, If I wish to take those psychological studies for what they’re really telling me, which is to say, where I do not hold back, I do not stop at my faith in what I already believe that I’m coming upon, then I might ask further:

What series of random events has coalesced in such a way to allow me to be presented to that particular arrangement of phrases or pictures that we are deciding is random?

Against what sense of truth are we deciding that any arrangement of pictures or phrases or words is random, such that the meaning that I am making (in that case) has no real basis? And is thus meaningless?

Basis Truth

I could go on.

What these kinds of questions tell us is that science is not giving us truth of the universe. Rather, what science is likely giving us is merely a reflection of our culture, of our ideology, of an ability of mind, and not the mind itself nor the universe that arises in truth.

I say this not to resort back to relativity or mirror (or mere) opinions, or subjective perception. I say this to point out that if we reject all those routes into reality, we must find that indeed reality did not disappear, but that there is a truth which can be known which does not reduce to real faith, as I say, To the religion of modern ideology.

Again and again as I said elsewhere, I’m not saying that faith and religion is inherently bad or that it needs correcting. I am merely suggesting that this is the way that consciousness functions. When a person comes upon the truth of how consciousness is indeed functioning, what is able to happen is that the way we participate in the real ideology changes.

It is then possible that it is not so much that we make meaning, but that meaning is what we are. And further, that what we are is not separated from the universe in which we arise to meaning. A reduction to individual brains is able to be come upon and is indeed able to derive necessary reason and rationales. However, An opening of that same system reveals that there is a truth beyond that kind of limited orientation upon things – but a truth that the orientation upon brain/mind religion implicitly rejects. The religion of the scientific mind rejects any knowledge that itself does not support. That is why it is a religion: Becuase there is other rational and knowable knowledge that does not adhere to its cosmological mandates.

Again: this is not to say that reality and knowledge about it is not real or does not function; rather, it is only to say that it is indeed real and refers to real things, but not true.

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.

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 Chrysalis

"For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things thro' narrow chinks of his cavern" -- William Blake

Note To My White Self

The reflections of a white man confronting his personal privilege and racism.

The Orthosphere

Wherever an altar is found, there civilization exists - Joseph de Maistre

Object Relations

"A Word of Substance"

Random thoughts

Random musings about everything.

Wise & Shine

A community for writers & readers

A New Vision for Mental Health

New and interesting things are happening in mental healthcare – find out about them here and help shape a new vision for mental health

Mental Health 101

Author/Writer @ Thought Catalog, LiberoMagazine, Invisible illness&TotallyADD peer supporter trainee I blog to bring awareness to mental health issues

Secrets of Mental Health

The Choice is Yours!

RTS -Mental health

Facing The Challenges of Mental Health

Spo-Reflections

To live is to battle with trolls in the vaults of heart and brain. To write; this is to sit in judgment over one's Self. Henrik Ibsen

Mind Beauty Simplicity

living with less gave me more to live for

Olivia Lucie Blake

Musings of a Millennial. Life, The World and Everything In Between.

Damon Ashworth Psychology

Clinical Psychologist

Mental Health @ Home

A safe place to talk openly about mental health & illness

The Absurd

piles of dog-eared books, fountain pens, poetry, romance and despair, existential crisis, anarchy, rebellion

THE HIDDEN SOUL

Want some motivation,this is the place

Bio-Blogger

Bio-Blogger is an excellent source for collaborations and to explore your businesses & talents.

Wibble

Just another glitch in the matrix

Filosofa's Word

Cogito Ergo Sum

Climate of Sophistry

Climate science is sophistry...i.e., BS.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

a joyful life

happiness joy love kindness peace

The Twisting Tail

the world turns on a word

Mytika Speak

Where Logic and Feeling Unite

Notes from Camelid Country

A travel blog from Bolivia to Belgium via Berlin

Heroes Not Zombies

becoming not being.......

Emotional Shadows

where all emotions are cared for!

Soulsoothinsounds's Blog

For those awakening divine humans

Peacock Poetry

by Sam Allen

Union Homestead

An urban homesteading family move to the country; still a story of trial and error...a lot of error!

The adopted ones blog

Two adoptees - one vocal the other not so much...

Conversations on finding and loving who I am

Let's have an open conversation about life.

ThoughtsnLifeBlog

Change your thoughts and transform your life

Tips from Sharvi

Tips to make your daily life easier!

mulyale mutisya

what the eyes have seen, ears have heard, being has experienced and what the Spirit has felt.

TheCommonAtheist

One minute info blogs escaping the faith trap

beetleypete

The musings of a Londoner, now living in Norfolk

radhikasreflection

Everyday musings ....Life as I see it.......my space, my reflections and thoughts !!

THE SPECTACLED BEAN

Tales, Thoughts + Tribulations of a Free Spirit in Suburbia