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 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.

Object Relations

"A Word of Substance"

Random thoughts

Random musings about everything.

Pointless Overthinking

Understanding ourselves and the world we live in.

Learnography

Place of knowledge transfer for kids learnography

Resiliency Mental Health

Dr. Amy Marschall, Licensed Psychologist

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!

rethinkingscripture.wordpress.com/

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 change 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