Thinking Religion Through Things, but not really.

“In recent years, the “material turn” has gained prominence in the humanities and social sciences, and it has also stimulated a shift toward a rediscovery of materiality in the scientific study of religion\s. The material turn aims to dissolve…”
— Read on www.academia.edu/17639583/Thinking_Religion_Through_Things_Reflections_on_the_Material_Turn_in_the_Scientific_Study_of_Religion_s_in_Method_and_Theory_in_the_Study_of_Religion_28_4_5_2016_365_399

—— I am on academia.edu and, as you may know, it sends papers to you depending on your searches and apparent interests. It often sends me papers that have something so to with New Materialism, like the one linked to this post. I am going to talk about the real intellectual avoidance of material mess.

Type.

If I had to define what kind of thinker I am, Id say I am a totalizer. When I begin to think, my thoughts immediate goto as much of ‘whole’ that there is; what my mind understands as details, at least when it starts doing things like thinking, it is really beginning at a place where most people I encounter feel is not really details. This is so much the case that even as I attempt describe this situation, I find my mind battling with this discrepancy, knowing that people who read this are beginning with details…

I call myself a totalizer because I have found through my own experience with interacting with others that they are missing the details that are assumed in my communication. It is from this approach that I am able to speak of things the way they are…

Method.

I find it interesting how people always think I am saying something I am not; I find that quite often, and especially in the writing-reading domain, that people do not start with reading what I am writing. Rather, they start reading with an assumption that I must not be saying (either me or themselves are reading, I am not sure) what the words are saying. It comes off to me like they are already on-guard to be decided, always ready to make the argument, and by this really miss what the words mean and what the sentences say.

In regular communication, we typically know this as not listening to what the person is saying. Indeed, this is so regular and prevalent that we have a plethora of “how to listen” things are out there. While I feel many of those instructions are good, I wonder that they never really happen like the teacher would wish, and if they did, it brings me to consider why there would be any need to have the teachers. Often, it is as though we have to be taught what we don’t know because we want to have another piece of information in our arsenal to argue why we dont have to really listen.

This is why I find the attention to details is not only a skill of communicating. Sure, it is good to learn some communication skills; I am not suggesting some nihilistic “actuality” as though people are dumb and I’m so smart. The attention to details appears more a method of understanding oneself and reality itself, but maybe not in the way you might be thinking. I am not trying to deceive you or lead to to some awareness of the situation that you are not understanding. This idea that I am trying to convince you of something is just part of a particular method for understanding how things are, and not from a mere intellectual grasping, but from the very frame through which we are able to understand anything at all. This is less something you do not know that I am trying to convince you of; it is more something that you are using in order to understand what I am saying and what you are supposed to do with it.

Material.

In my counseling practice, I find that in various exercises I have to be clear that I am not trying to deceive or trick clients into having some sort of “ah ha!” moment. For example, if I ask someone to close their eyes and breathe, they often immediately think I am trying to get them to relax, and tell me all sorts of ideas, experiences and conclusions they have around it. Sometimes, yes, but most of the time I am really just having them close their eyes and breathe. If they start to relax, then that’s great, but they assume a great amount and actually thereby often miss what I actually mean; but that’s a whole other thing.

There is no underlying meaning or therapeutic subversion there, and I feel I am not encountering something irregular or particular to people with “mental issues”. Everyone has issues; one might even argue that you would have no relationships with people if you didn’t have issues. lol. But that is beside my point.

People are so ready to have an “ah ha” moment of understanding that they defend against it, they ‘want’ to be right, and this usually means that you can’t be right unless I already knew it, or unless I give you permission to be right before me. I feel this caries into a regular methodological maxim of intellectual engagement. Yet further, that it is this mode of intellectual engagement that the New Materialism is actually describing.

…people are so ready to have an ‘ah ha’ moment that they actively defend against it…

Cedric Nathaniel.

The quick synopsis of NM is that everything is interrelated. Besically that everything is material, from thoughts, to discourse…every thing is real material and interrelated as such. Of course, they go further than that, which goes to another feature of my totalizing nature:

I find that every once in a while people have some great ideas, and then people take those ideas and, over time, in collective rush, turn them into mush. And really that’s what academics primarily is: its a mush-mash. I’m not suggesting this is bad or wrong; I am just telling it as it is. It is pot of boiling soup of flavors being put together. I think that’s good overall. However, good ideas have a tendency to be used to support so many things that the great idea often enough loses its impact, actually loses the reason itself that made it so interesting and important – because it comes to be used in a manner that is not really what it was saying or being. Indeed: it is this real motion of intellectual analysis that New Materialism accounts for through, yes, more intellectualization.

Its very Alfred Whitehead, but that just goes to my point of reality.

Object.

It is interesting to me how New Materialism has come to encompass Object Oriented ideas; for example THIS PAPER is but one of a stream of discussion that lumps Objects Oriented discussions of things into New Materialism. Sure; there is good reason to think this way, as it redundantly argues itself through its own method, exemplifying its argument in the actual approach upon their activity. I get it: things are real material. Nonetheless, it does show how the argument is not able to pull itself out of itself own gravity well, if you will. One likes to think they are being so open minded in thinking about things, but more often they really are just defending against having to see the details for what they actually are.

I call this real manner of coming upon things reality. In reality, there is material that behaves and is acted upon in this very real manner that, really, cannot be argued against. It is thus due to this ubiquitous manner of ability to see things that I frame reality as that place where we all interact with materials and various material realities.

However, the reality of the situation is that I am talking about some thing specific, not mere relative interrelated mush. It is this specificity that I say finds objects. This must be the case simply by the fact that if someone rejects this proposal, my immediate response would be: how are you able to know what you are rejecting? If it is merely a moment of discourse, then how could you know of that? If it is an unknowable feature of reality, how could you know that? Is it just your mind’s ability to process? How do you know that? Isn’t it all relative material intersections? If it means that the universe is nothing, well…and so it goes. I am arising in a material reality that is always in flux, to be short. But then: How could I know that? Does it fall to pieces when I say it, or do my words mean nothing? What is arising ? When did my words coalesce to mean something particular? But wasn’t is all interrelated with every other piece of material? When did it stop being interrelated for me to locate it in a word? And so on…

The conclusion always argues it’s method.

Without going on into the years of papers and posts, indeed once we come to this juncture, the whole of phenomenalist discourse is reiterated in all is variety and verity, indeed, as an object. It is simply true, but in a manner which changes the epistemological operation.

Am I defending against this detail so I can make an argument about my better idea?

How is my way of knowing allowing me to look at things by excluding myself from the thing of my intellectual operation?

Or, how is my religion allowing me to exclude myself from the analysis of religion?

X

The Veritable Counsel

We are generally afraid of talking, let alone thinking, about truth. I think this is due to the terrible things that humans beings do under the name of truth. Truth is associated with narrow-mindedness and intellectual myopia, as well as authoritarianism and religion.

Well, I seek to disrupt those automatic associations, to help with an understanding truth in the context of truth itself, as opposed to what we are justifiably afraid of in real understanding and activity.

The Real Condition, or The True Condition of Reality

I was reading this part from a book:

Sorry, it is sideways
(from THE ACT WORKBOOK, used without permission)

What caught my attention was “…experts in the field of emotion…”

🤔

I am reminded of the seminal paper by Jean-Francois Lyotard call The Post Modern Condition:

The Postmodern Condition

As well, now, the foundational infamous Danish philosopher Soren Kiekerkegaard comes to mind; particularly…

To where is everyone going so fast ?

It is possible to understand philosophy as a name of an involvement with knowledge. In this way, bringing these authors to bear upon philosophy, we can understand that either a person is moving so fast in their effort to get somewhere (who knows where, though) that they forget or mistake their effort as concerning something that is not knowledge, or, the person understands that knowledge is the only thing that is being handled.

The irony here is that this situation is not merely philosophical.

This is to indicate what is happening in our knowing of it, and in fact, in our knowing of anything at all. Two mutually exclusive, non-philopsohical, operations arise in knowing:

  • It is real
  • It is true

On one hand, there are those who will read this far with a fair assumption that they are reading a philosophical post, will already be engaged with it under a certain notion of what is happening and in a way ‘ride upon’ that notion in order to engage with the post or not engage. That is, usually, they will think that this post requires of them to engage in a certain way, and so will be interested or not. If they are not, it is likely that they are not really into thinking this way, that is, philosophically. This is what I generalize as the real philosophical issue: philosophy is just another topic that people will be interested in or not, and within the philosophy understood in this way, there are other philosophical topics that again, people will be interested in or not.

Nonetheless, to the extent that people see this as a real philosophical issue, which then compels them to engage or not and despite what they see as their choices, there we have the true philosophical issue: the issue of the human being involved with knowing.

The truth of the real philosophical issue has to do with how to be a human being has a proper modern identity. Such a person must really be on their toes, for, their goal is to out run and out do everyone else. They must constantly live worried about what everyone else will say or do, because they must get there first, anticipate other peoples activity to make sure they get there first. They must know more than anyone else, and interaction with others are the occasions to be their identity, that is, likely not truly themselves, but just a person in reality. They must use technology better, and they must outdo nature.

They thus concern themselves with being what they are not: they must be experts in themselves with regard to what others are in reality. There is only so much food: I gotta get mine. I want to be the best business executive: I have to know more than the other person, look better, perform better. I want people to be educated and healthy: I must make sure I know what Im doing so I can be viewed as someone who is able to help with those things, so people will come to me for those things. I want to live in peace: I must protect what is mine and be keen on what someone else might do to take from me what is mine. This is what the human being does and must to in reality, and to rebut this is simply to be engaging in this very activity. It is not necessarily wrong; it is simply what we do, have done for as long as we can understand what is human, and it is what we will do in the same way, again, as long as we understand the human being as such.

Lyotard describes this real situation as the Postmodern Condition , and I think it still holds; his report is a report on knowledge, not really a treatise about what ought to be done to correct it (of course, he is obligated to imply an ethical response to it, but that is a real philosophical issue; see my other posts.) To say it is “post-modern”, though, opens things up for his proposal to be something other that what it is, something that it is not, to be something else, like realist, or structuralist. See, though, that these names stake their claims in reality, and in anticipation of people staking their ideological claims to identity, in the same way that Lyotard, by his paper, was/is understood to be making a real philosophical claim. Ironically, this activity is to what Lyotard refers the Expert of Technology: everyone attempting to gain justice for themselves by outdoing everyone else. Thinking better; thinking differently, and so on.

While it comes out of the title of the paper to make a real philosophical claim, when we understand what he is saying, it is more that he is describing the situation for what it is, and that every rebuttal and proposal, at once, falls into the description (of the postmodern condition), while then adhering to its claim, suggests that it is moving beyond it to be something else. By virtue of this real condition, it is near a non sequitur not to see this condition as true. This is to say, the only escape from it is made by using the method that the condition describes, which shows that this condition never changes. I call this condition, thus, real. It is the description of the reality of knowing.

Justice

Then, be extension, I feel like something is wrong in this realization of the reality that I am involved with. Somehow, once I see it, I am not able to gain a sense of Justice in my having to be involved with reality. I try and try, but something is always lacking, and I just can’t figure it out. So what do I do?

The Beginning of Knowing As Such

The example of that excerpt above is a usual description of what science gives us; an assertion which seems like it is giving us something definite and precise, yet upon scrutiny, it is vague and means very little. We look at scientific proposals and we like how it appears, we like how it makes us feel, like that we can be sure of what we are talking about, like we know something. It gives me a feeling that what I am doing and saying is justified. It is real and part of the knowing of what is real.

However, to again doubt and rebut, to resort to thinking by our fear, as though I am suggesting science is “not true” is a real issue, not the true issue. Of course science and is findings and proposals are real, and true in their reality. However, to make further assumptions and statements beyond this fall squarely into real philosophical issues, real philosophical material of ethical dimensions.

What I do from there is the true philosophical issue.

More in a bit…

Is Graham Harman as New Materialist??

from Antiquities Beyond Humanism ed E Bianchi, S. Brill, B. Holmes
— Read on www.academia.edu/39168908/Hyperobjects_OOO_and_the_eruptive_classics_field_notes_of_an_accidental_tourist

—–  I’m posting this essay because it might be informative to some in general.

I have not read it. I read pretty much the first three sentences, and then I stopped…

Is Graham Harman part of the New Materialist genre?

 It’s interesting, how the motions of theory move through existence:  It’s an odd sort of experience of people thinking that they’re thinking, but not really thinking. It’s like they read authors and then they move in the opposite direction in their portrayal of them. Not just a different direction, but they really begin to address some thing that has, sometimes to my view, not very much about the author that they’re referring to is really talking about..

 It’s quite strange.

 I don’t think that Dr. Harmon will read my blog here, but I’m fairly certain that he denies that he’s a materiallist. And so here’s this author, publishing, a paper, if you notice that this is a proof, or some sort of draft for some publication that’s coming out, and the first couple sentences they pretty much have incorrect. I mean, unless Dr. Harmon just doesn’t give a shit anymore about what people label him, and I think he wouldn’t give a shit because he’s got his life and then it’s fine I suppose. 😄

 I am pretty certain that Graham Harmon has denied that he’s a materialist. 

The author also puts object oriented ontology, Graham Harmon’s project, under Karen Barad and the new materialist people, when actually he was coming up at the same time. It’s just is justified to say that the new materialist are a type of object, oriented ontology, which is patently ridiculous.  That’s why I didn’t read the rest of his article, because he’s pretty much telling me that he’s living in a fantasy land of his own academically semantic making.

It just amazes me. Why people are so ready to move into subjective meaning over that objective truth.

And: don’t you think it’s strange, me, as a counselor, as a mental health counselor, that I would be saying that people should move more in the direction of objective truth, rather than semantic, and the situating of terms as an ontological basis?!

 I would think that in itself forget your mind, moving as to what is truly happening in contrast to the meaning that you’re really coming up with.

Have you begun to think?

I feel it goes all back to postmodernism. People love the meaning they make, so much that, often, they are unable to hear what someone else is saying.

Whatever people wanna call themselves, really the first title of the writing should be postmodernist and then parentheses (whatever they’re trying to name themselves).

Honestly, I think the real issue is that philosophers are never clear about really what they’re talking about, nor what they’re talking from in their proposals, but, due to that they are blind to their assumptions, as well that they are even blind to being blind to them. And that’s the basis for post modern academic theory. 

If you’re curious about why I say this, you can check out my blog posts from probably three or 4+ years ago on this very blog.

Have a great day.

Science is not in opposition to ignorance

Only by a certain orientation upon knowledge does oppositional categories have significant affect.

I was reading a paper, part of the paper anyways, where the author talks about John Locke saying his work not involved with science.

Just got me thinking. Georg Hegel, and many more philosophers for sure we’re trying to find some sort of “science“ of …what? Now that were in the moment that were in, I’m not sure we really are identifying what science actually is.

Indeed, even scientists would give us a definition that if we were to look into what it really means, or what it’s really identifying, we would find that it is like saying that that object over there is a chair. Any mediocre Philosopher knows that as soon as we attempt to investigate an object from the standpoint of the phenomenology of the subject, we find that there’s nothing really there that the word identifies. I’m short, that language or words of language are arbitrary.

Science as Truth

I am the first person to suggest that words are not arbitrary. Even while I hang on to the logic of the philosophy which understands words and sounds and symbols is not necessarily being linked to the object that they suppose.

I feel this is a more significant venture for philosophy: that words identify things that truly arise in the universe. That the knowledge of things in such a way is indeed a science, or indeed can be eventually found out and known truthfully in a system of science.

Now, of course, the only logical means to understand that last phrase that I gave is to understand that I am not in a project that has to do with the present moment, so far as modern science. But rather, indeed science is some thing that human beings are involved with teleologically, that is to say, universally. So it is that I say that my work has to do with disrupting correlated terms, which is to say, terms that arise in a polemic which seem like they’re true, but Are really only given into a particular kind of knowledge. I called this particular kind of knowledge modern.

This is interesting because if I’m going to propose that my work has something to do with science then I must realize that there is a current working epistemological paradigm that functions, indeed as it promotes a faith in, it’s mode of corrections, it’s patterned system of lacunae, and that if I am going to propose that my work is scientific, then I must indeed deal with the present misunderstanding that is common empirical science as a thing that arises truly in the universe as well.

In this way, then, we can begin to understand a progress of the human species, of the human being, that betrays the common ideological heritage. We can begin to see that a science arises through a different kind of understanding of what has been happening in the growth of the human creature through time, and indeed that’s come upon a different understanding of what time actually is. After all this: we can find a scientific truth of the universe that human beings can know and apply.

Post Truth?

This is also to say that we must contend with idiocy. We must contend with the idiocy of the conservative liberal “science” -oriented modern epistemological technology, and those correlations that constitute its basis, those who have a different opinion, that knowledge which arises as “conspiracy“, The conveyors of post truth, and otherwise ignorant people, warmongers of 19th century disposition, etc..

A little while ago the philosopher Alain Badiou suggested that the radical political move would be to not vote. Basically, to drop out of involving oneself with politics. That this indeed would be the radical political move. And of course, all those for Social Justice really had to take what he was saying and apply it ironically, metaphorically, as if he really wasn’t saying what he was saying.

For, for those oriented in the social justice of empirical modern reality, one must make choices into political action..

Disjointed and disconnected as it is from any true universe — when we begin to comprehend that I am not involved in the constituting of the other, then we can truly begin to understand what subjectivity is and how it indeed arises as a true thing in the universe.

We find that we just must do what we do, and in that doing we arise as a truly radical political entity. The choice into political agency is based in a decision that cannot be made.

The Moment of Decisive Significance

I’m not making a political statement here, really. .

Science as the Object of the Subject.

Maybe that’s what I’m saying. Science is always epistemological. Epistemology grants the significant understanding of the true universe.

🧐

The Philosophical Hack

We are so motivated and conditioned by the given modern phenomenology that we become fearful and skeptical when the word “truth” arises. So far as mental health, this kind of fear is “the final frontier“, and it is usually a fear that resides so deeply and so substantially that people just consider it normal. Indeed, it is so foundational, it constitutes the basis of modern identity, such that most people would be content in the contradictions that uphold their identity, to have some personal and private spirituality and religious belief, that most mental health issues are never encountered. That is the way of the modern capitalistic world; we cannot impose mental health upon all of humanity and its social systems, if simply because we have no way of affectively addressing it. Hence, I see ethics as having to do more with logistics, and less of what meaning and decisions we see ourselves needing to make.

🦥

The truth is in there.

👽

The Object of the Subject

“The Philosophical Hack uses Slavoj Zizek’s book ‘Event’ as a platform from which to hack into philosophy. A hack is someone who is adept in technology and standard methods but is not employed to make marketed products. Yet in another sense, a hack is a repeated application of a specific yet broad algorithmic protocol upon a closed problematic space. The role of the hack is at once to disrupt and to consolidate. The hack is a check on the security of closed functional systems, as well as the impetus for its growth. Defining this problematic space through a careful assault on weak points in the philosophical facade, Nathaniel offers us a way into a science of philosophy. Mr. Nathaniel is writing to a wide intelligent audience in such a way that the philosophical mind will not be ostracized but will indeed be challenged. It is indeed a philosophical hack.”
— Read on www.lulu.com/shop/cedric-nathaniel/the-object-of-the-subject/ebook/product-24228206.html

More by:

https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/Landzek/
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.

🧠🌝❤️

Reality is Not All That We Make It Up To Be

Thursday night’s first hearing will feature firsthand witnesses to the violence at the U.S. Capitol as well as video clips of testimony from top Trump aides.
— Read on www.huffpost.com/entry/jan-6-committee-first-hearing-capitol-riot_n_62a10863e4b06169ca862faf

—— We get to make our own realities.

This is the basis through which all current political worlds can be found to be reducible to the explanatory of mental health.

That is a very common phrase that has become so ubiquitous to our modern reality, we forget it is a post-modern ideal. From a counseling and mental health standpoint yes, we make our own realities through making meaning.

However, a very simple and basic truth of it is, sure, we get to make our own worlds, but at some point the truth of the universe, big-R, REALITY is coming in and you are going to have to deal with it.

The way that mental health becomes explanatory is happens next.

Those who stick to the total idealism of semantic reality-making get defensive, and double down on the world they have made. This leads to one or both of two things:

  1. Mental break down, or what we like to call an existential crisis. This is where ultimately the person is faced with the truth of their situation and has to deal with it.
  2. Violence.

This is mental health, not an existential issue. An existential issue has to with with item #1. The true issue has to do with both items.

That is to say, how do we ethically reconcile our want to enact violence for the righteousness our ethical worlds?

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