Truth and tyranny within psychiatric methodology and 'psychological' terminology.

[Zangetshumody]

I wanted to make a thread dealing directly with my reply to the "spiritual interview" thread by Snowbread. I know that thread was about counseling not directly about psychiatry, but I believe my thread title is more fitting in the view of the issues I'm raising for discussion.

quoting myself:-
"It might not have been obvious, but I was giving that you information, because I'm open to being interviewed, although I foresee it being troublesome for your particular requirements you need to fulfill with your project. Which is perhaps itself an example of the greater murky waters that the theoretical work behind your project will have problematic accountability about: because all methodology must be grounded by some kind of epistemological position, and epistemological pluralism is certainly troublesome, but an unadaptable position that manifests as a presumption on matters of truth is just as troubling. And then assuming a superficial role that pretends to have neither a pluralistic position or a definitive position, is its own species of philosophical fascism (and a tyrannical deceitfulness hidden in plain sight)."

Furthermore, there is a scripture in the bible (I don't mention that to assert authority by the source, just noting the source of where I recount the idea: ) that says something like: the reasons lawyers are terrible, and won't be saved, is because they hide the keys of knowledge. In the same way, I think closed systems of knowledge, especially how psychiatry manifests in practice, is similarly illegitimate to the lawyers who hide the keys to knowledge- because they needs hide the deep reasoning on which diagnosis is hinged by its brittle philosophy that can only be sheltered by obscuring the obvious presumptuousness that tethers its judgement to worldly powers; thus denying an individuals liberty on the most invasive grounds: thought crimes that are identified by their tendencies to be socially disruptive (and thus stemming revolutionary modes of mental schema).

Obviously I would draw the line on certain kinds of extreme social disruption myself: but those are already the wrong terms on which to discriminate truth and error;- however I can already generate a new "test" that I feel would combat most psychiatric impositions that are certainly unjustifiably invasive.

a test: social disruption that can be accounted and covered over, by an individual's hope, in their endeavors that cause the disruption; needs be immune to psychiatric violation.
generally speaking, to my mind- social disruption that is valid in the above description occurs by socio-political shift; for the purpose of socio-political movement and development (those shifts and developments is just the vehicle of the individuals pursuit, read at the societal level, but need not be accountable to society, just the individual (which includes the accountability of one individual to another)): and any manner of peculiarity can be excused by such a [socio-political] pursuit. Therefore, generally speaking, suffering caused by the pursuit is justifiable, if it is an indirect consequence of the purpose (social disruption, familial strain, financial strain taken on the state etc.), directly caused suffering (direct in this context means- the primary and first consideration of the intention attached to the behavior being reviewed) must be specifically covered by the hopeful pursuit of the dignity being enjoyed by reluctant "patient" or the fully coerced "ward of the state" that refutes the purport of a lawful claim against his liberty. Although usually the law in most cases requires danger as an element to commitment proceedings- at some point, the question of danger can be flipped according to the philosophical rigor that cannot just be silently claimed by the garb and the reliance on office, that are the marks of hidden keys.

Also a specialist in the realm of psychology with reference to a court proceeding is a dubious proposition entirely. Especially in the cases where the specialist is giving testimony on the accused state of mind: it is true that such similar witnesses might have special insight, but that insight must be laid out to the court, and made fully accessible to counterclaim (which means the so called specialist should rob himself of all the trappings of terminology which disguise his fundamental philosophies, and their feeble scopes of their philosophies' foundation: which could be developed and refined, if only academia was not so guarded against its own state of ignorance, by the pretenses it offers to the public, and to the people's courts).

 

[Zangetshumody]

This is an edited response I replied to someone's PM, it has been edited a bit, and I don't believe it contains anything confidential excepting for pieces of information regarding my own experiences in the practice of mental health.

my reply went approximately as what follows:

If you simply don't wish to submit to your doctors orders, or psychiatric assistance (which is not something I would recommend in your situation because of my unfamiliarity with yourself), then you need to truly have confidence in a alternative treatment that you know is more viable. I had such a viable alternative in the form of my theories on psychology, which I used as source of therapeutic treatment to countervene my mood disorder.

I can discuss a few things at this point which I think are vital for you to consider: firstly, I believe my condition was/is ("is" because, as its currently defined by psychiatry, there is no 'cure' for what I have,) perhaps quite different to your own mental affliction. I only stopped taking medication because I was certain I would never again have another major manic episode, and even then, as I was recovering from the withdrawal from the mood stabilizers, my physiological and mental constitution was sorely tested further when almost 7 months later, after I had revealed that I was no longer taking medication to my parents, I was subjected to involuntary medication being applied to me intermittently and in secret (which was rather dangerous, not only because I was driving when the affects of this medication starting kicking in (which is prone to make one rather drowsy and extremely tired when you've been clean off that type of medication, as its like taking it for the first time all over again). Then I had to endure fierce altercations to keep from being threatened with involuntary commitment, my testimony that I had been without incident while having been off the medication for over 6months was ignored and unbelieved (they wouldn't believe me that I had not been taking my medication for so long): my family, who I was and still am, to a large extent directly financially dependent upon, made the claims for my sanity incredibly difficult. In this world, if one is not independent in an economic sense, the tacit implication is much the same as any householder under the Roman Pater Familias (the legal head of the household); you have no rights, and you are basically the property of those who pay the piper. Living within such a landscape, without independent finances, your family can project whatever familial condemnation and blame they wish your integrity to take the burden for. I point this out, as its been my personal experience, that mental illness emanates from the loss of personal integrity, and merging with the environmental criticism one is incorporating into the super-ego: therefore for example; my own mental illness was largely the adoption of my parents insanity as something I should be accountable to, instead of just refuting it (and so my own mental illness, had at its nexus (core)- that I gave greater integrity to my environmental energy, than my personal energy (not that personal energy can't contain its own errors, but in the loss of focus on the self- you are far removed from any hope of routing out a solution about your true feelings).

Basically, in my case: the root of my delusion was buying into the belief that I am "not normal", instead of saying: yes, I am weird- and according to my weirdness: you people around me are being very very stupid, I can even tell exactly why you are being stupid, don't expect me to feel bad about having my own independent thinking, when I am capable of show casing my reason and being convincing about my contentions, and any of your possible insults against me come as hollow labels attached to feeble [or presumptuous and contemptible] qualifications (meaning that I made myself emotionally vulnerable to ideas I knew were just an unreasonable and deceitful tyranny of non-thinking).

I should of also added how other brilliant men in history would have huge mental break downs in their early 20's, who have then gone onto reconstitute their personal mental frameworks. Wittgenstein was such a different person after his extensive and protracted psychotic episode, that his written philosophical work was regarded as Wittgenstein II- so as to distinguish his style and thought; since after his huge major breakdown. Also Sir Isaac Newton was similarly a spiritual journeyman (who apparently died celibate), suffered a catastrophic delusional episode, I'm not sure if this was ever cataloged in someone's historical account as a protracted state of mental breakdown, but he was certainly found meditating inside a pentagram drawn in his own blood: no doubt he was trying to discern the evil spirits so he might better vanquish them by a purely obtained spiritual knowledge (the bible commands one to discern all the spirits, and I believe Newton was a pious man). I was going to weave that into my discussion above somehow... but those are all men, didn't have to deal with an institutionalized diagnosis, that in our society is a mark that never lifts against your name in the psychiatric system of knowledge: and so you could be afflicted by a condition that you cannot control under your own power, or have control garnered through an alternative treatment: I would only advise you to take your doctors advice until you honestly believe you have a comprehensive command of the mental health problem you are receiving treatment for to a greater extent than those who are currently treating you.

I took medication for over 3 years, and I was never happy taking meds, and I always encouraged my doctors to prescribe me the least they could (although I'm afraid they might have always taken this as a sign that they should increase my doses). But I only felt comfortable not taking my medications around the 4th year, when I was sure I had alternative tools that would work for me to counter-act slipping into a bout of delusional fueled mania (although its hard to give a definition of exactly what the illness is, because describing it in behavior even makes me feel paranoid that such a behavioral definition could be used against me, to test my actions and condemn me falsely, because the illness is actually an internally driven thing, and should be defined as a fault operating in one's private understanding: of which I have generally been left free from condemnation, although outward appearance are quick to falsely betray one such as myself, in the eyes of society/a judge/a psychiatrist, because as far as I can see, psychiatry is a fancy looking means test dressed up in order to produce lucrative labels: but society needs some way to marginalize those who won't fuel the societal machinery (as it marches itself towards collectively produced ecological collapse: which needs be posed to the psychiatrist's throne for full redress that I deem to be owing)).

Also: it is generally I think an interesting notion to think that a lot of mental illness could come from the social forces grafted from the mental health paradigm itself- Since we do not train doctors to tell their own patients that they themselves have a deeper connection to the problems inside their own mind, and that the doctor external to that mind must keep up the pretense of a superior knowledge than the patient's self is capable of, the very notion of a complete self-regulated integrity:- is a basic thing we have put under threat by our cultures attachment to the prestige and supremacy of the institution of thought-medicine, (which could be argued to be just one of the cogs for the array of institutions in general we experience), which are at least abstractly responsible for the enslaved sheeple archetype, which then develop the illness exactly befitting the institutions mandated to curb those 'social disruptions' (and so in the same fashion as the famous Jung quote: what the institution wishes to resist in the human condition, ends up becoming a persistent experience with the population).

And so in the context of the above discussion, I should say to you: it is impossible to dislocate yourself from such a paradigm, until you have found an alternative diagnosis that doesn't just sound true for yourself, but that you first know and then feel to be true... But since I have little experience with schizophrenia, I would not recommend stopping meds, or not following your doctors advice. I have heard of a African Sangoma's (those are the traditional healers where I live), who remove ghosts from people's minds, because if they are talking to themselves, that is a ghost in the understanding of the African Traditional Medicine, and they do have ways of removing them which usually aren't hard to do (but often if you have such a ghost, you also need to develop further things so that you don't just pick up another one, because according to the tradition, they usually only attach to wandering/loose minds); I don't know what your personal beliefs are, but I have heard of people finding alleviation. There is a local Sangoma I have gone with on a Shamanistic retreat with, he is originally from Europe, he removed from ghosts from me, which I thought I had confirmed with psychologists when I was child was not auditory hallucination, just me sounding thoughts through a different emotionally energy to make my mental life more interesting as I was often caught up in deep contemplation by myself: after I had the ghosts removed, all those extra tones of voice my mind has access to (because I would only think through one of them at a time) were removed except for just a voice that clearly my own. I only mention traditional healing like this, because there are older societies that did have to deal with mental afflictions; also there is a Jewish horn that was used to remove ghosts which they also believe sit inside people, which is still used by some rabbi to do the same work, still to this day I believe.

The personal experience of my condition follow on below; although I know this is probably unwise to publicize, perhaps the words below will offer comfort enough to those who would find comfort in ridiculing me, as that is my preferable form of reprisal to experience, for it is far better than being out of integrity with your own self.

My aberrant salience only manifested when I underwent major manic episodes,
All my life (from a clinical perspective I note the following) I have suffered from possessing memories of events which seem very unlikely to be true (uncanny and taken all together, far too impressive to be believable): but apart from my the grandiosity of my memories, I have never found conclusive proof that any of them were untrue, and part of their elaborate nature and the fickleness of how memory is accessed (as only relevant details are recalled, not a extensive sequence of events, although I can recount the general order of events appropriately by my appraisal), means my memory greatly accounts for why there is a general lack of evidence, and there is an extreme amount of indirect evidence that supports my historical claims- that these memories are real, and also: there is much indirect evidence that I have memory of, that could find further corroboration if I could fact check that peculiar knowledge that indirectly marks me as a participant (who was privy to details that would be otherwise impossible to predict and insinuate a pretend access for knowing). However, many of these things happened so long ago, and merely vindicating indirect proof is such an intangible, and in the end fruitless exercise, I would rather wait until I can directly corroborate one my (more astounding) memories.

But I can no longer pretend to myself I don't believe all my stories aren't true, although I know that will mark me as charlottean and a pretentious-Messiah figure until I ever find proof, and if my stories can be proven, those revelations would shock the world to its foundation, as the elaborate extent of my involvements in managing the development of consciousness... well it really would be astounding to fathom how much one person could direct a civilization in such a starkly channeled way; the internet, youtube, all sorts of media that inspire consciousness: direct political foray has been a mess at every attempt I have made, there are dark powers behind the scenes, and I have had to comprise in considerable ways: my earliest plan which would of had world peace worked out slowly by the operation of simple trusts set in place to temper the forces of world trade [that produce the conditions for turmoil and war that could be used to keep the peace also], was dismantled at gunpoint before the fools even knew what they were destroying, which they later begged me to help salvage the essential operations for, after they had realized too late the great mastery of conditions which had been responsibly managed, that I was able to replicate afterwards at their behest (in some half measures that permitted the unwieldy preservation of some of their destabilizing greediness), but even now those half measures are almost at their retirement, and I feel its only been my sociological work that keeps the looming oblivion pacified by the hope embodied by blue print is not yet fully abandoned according to the captivation's of that limiting narrative of national interests, which all states need idolize as the image of their fear.

 

[draon9]

Humanity sucks

 

[Cygnus]

You have my sympathies.



If you catch my drift.