> My mother is a (not in
> action) phycologist. She did the degree but decided that phycologist are
not
> quite 'sane' themselves and has decided not to be a phycologist.
> On with the subject line.
>
> --------The Definition of "Insanity"---------
>
> According to my 1991 edition of "Colins Pocket Dictionary of the English
> Language" the definition of the word insane is:
>
> 1. mentally ill; crazy; of unsound mind. OR
> 2. irresponsible; very foolish; stupid
>
> and the definition of insanity is:
>
> 1. The state of being insane
> 2. utter folly; stupidity
>
> I found this definitions rather unsatisfactory. I find that Pirsig's
> definition of insanity is a much more intelligent way of defining the word
> insane. This dictionary and probably every dictionary fails to even
attempt
> to define why and how does one become mentally ill or crazy and they seem
to
> use the connotation (association) between insanity, and foolishness and
> stupidness.
It is not a dictionary's role to go into explanations of causality and
consequence.
> I think insanity is a largely misunderstand subject.
And, excuse my impertinence, on what evidence do you base such a statement?
Exactly how much work have YOU put into understanding mental illness? And
how much work have you put into gathering the opinions of others of mental
illness?
I think your point is primarily debased by repeatedly mis-spelling
"psychology" as this does suggest that your reading in the area is
seriously limited.
Beyond that you make no real statement beyond the belief that the boundaries
of mental illness are a human construct. Has anyone ever said otherwise? The
normal curve (by means of which individuals are deemed 'sane' or not) is, by
definition, a human invention. It attempts to be descriptive, applying rules
('normalisation') where previously there was arbitration.
> I believe
> insanity did not exist in ancient times when ape-men roamed the earth.
With respect, your 'beliefs' are irrelevant in regard to historical
accuracy. If you can show evidence that this is case, we may be able to have
a serious discussion on this topic.
> Why,
> because the morals of the sane had not been invented therefore there was
no
> way of telling a sane ape-man from a insane ape-man. In modern society
this
> still exist in some ways. It is still very hard to define the difference
> from an insane person and a sane person
Is it??? What is your experience in this field?? I happen to be a
Psychologist and I am not sure I would agree.
Simply put someone who is "insane" (not a term that would be used, but for
argument's sake I will allow it) will score, on normalised tests (as
prescribed by the manuals) outside the normal range. It is quite simple
really. Whether or not this is society's way of censoring individuals who
may challenge the received wisdom is beside the point. That get's into the
abuse of the system, NOT the efficiency of the system. I know the system to
be efficient, in that it separates those pre-determined to be sane from does
pre-determined to be insane. I suspect however that the system might well
too easily allow abuse. But that is not at issue here.
> but because of the certain morals of
> modern society we persuade people to conform to these basic morals and if
> they where to break these morals they would be classified as being insane
as
> Lila was in the book.
Insanity tries not to concern itself with morality. It is a concept based in
concern primarily for society and secondarily for the individual. The
concept of mental illness has been a controversial one down centuries
(primarily, it may inform you to know among psychologists and their
antecedents). Those behaving 'immorally' have historically been persecuted
not as insane but criminal. Those behaving 'inappropriately' or without
rationality were treated as mentally ill.
I find it difficult to listen to people talk of the social constructionism
of mental illness when I myself work with people with serious illnesses on a
day-to day basis.
Do YOU think it is 'well' to cut yourself every day? To hate yourself so
passionately that desire only to end your life? To shit yourself rather than
walk five yards to the toilet?
Do you suggest that these people be left untreated?
Do you acknowledge the possibility of a breakdown of rationality in the
individual? Do you consider this to be problematic to the individual? to
society?
Do you understand that the vast majority of the clients I deal with (and I
don't imagine that I am in a unrepresentative setting)
1) Are clinically SICK.
2) Receive treatment voluntarily
3) Respond well to treatment and go on to live happy much-improved (by their
own self-assessment of their own Quality of Life) lives
I'm trying to respond calmly (and good-humouredly) here because I realise
there IS a good discussion to be had here. I myself have found myself on the
Michel Foucault, Thomas Szasz 'Myth of Mental Illness' side of the argument
more times than not, but please try to inform yourself a small bit before
jumping in with your (possibly offensive) opinions. :-)
Regards,
Derrick
> I find this idea of mine relates to the title.
> "LILA : An inquiry of morals"
> We portray Lila as being insane. The subtitle finally makes sense. Pirsig
is
> inquiring into how morals relate to defining if a person is sane or not.
> Insanity is simply a evaluation of one's moral conformity.
>
> Thanks for reading I hope I will get some other people's definition and
> views of insanity and the insane.
> Geoff.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:42 BST