Zangetshumody
Member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2009
- Messages
- 458
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
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).
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).