Dear Derrick,
I hope you didn't take my post to seriously. I am merely trying to explain
what the definition of insanity is. In no way am I demeaning psychologists.
I simply am trying to analysis the book LILA with some of my personal views.
(Which my be wrong to you but everyone has there own philosophy as in the
book, Lila has her own culture.
"She's a culture of one" (pg424-425)
"I think insanity is a largely misunderstand subject."
- DERRICK: "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 thought my comment was rather truthful and I did not understand how you
could thoroughly disagree with it.
Yes I am very inexperienced. I havn't even finished schooling yet. Still
this doesn't mean I can not have an opinion.
If insanity was not a misunderstand subject there would be no need for
mental hospitals at all. We have yet to have solved the puzzle of what
drives a person insane. There would be no need for shock therapy if we did
understand the subject. My personal beliefs are strongly against shock
therapy or any savage use of
violence to qure the insane. Yes, I might not be a psychologist but I think
pretty much everyone with a conscience would be against shock treatment.
- DERRICK: "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."
Give me a break. Spelling does not matter.
If I were to be picky I could correct your spelling of "misspelling" no - is
needed.
I have read LILA and that is what we are all here for. Prisig shows similar
views about insanity in the book
" I believe insanity did not exist in ancient times when ape-men roamed the
earth."
- DERRICK: "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.
You don't seem to understand there is no way of proving philosophy. When
ape-man roamed the earth they had no language. They also had no morals.
The is no way to prove this historicaly because it was in pre-historic time.
I beleive my quote is relevant because there is no way you can prove that my
quote was not true.
"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."
- DERRICK: "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."
I am not forcing my philosophy onto you Derrick. Philosophy does not have to
be true you now!
I have no clue what a normalised tests is so I can not comment on it. (but I
am interested in finding out about if you could explain it further).
Your comment is partly true I should have discussed the last sentence
further "It is still very hard to define the difference from an insane
person and a sane person"
An insane person can easily pretend to sane and they can avoid being
classified as being insane. This is why some murders happen. Insane people
that have been pretending to be sane have the possibilty to do some insane
things and hurt other people. I totally agree when you said the system can
be too easily abused. There is a case when a group of people pretended to be
insane when they were not and in there acting they where classified as being
insane. Why, because yet again there is no way in the 'system' of telling
the difference between really insane people and people pretending to be
insane. A funny thing happened during that case. The people classified as
being insane and who really were insane knew that the others were pretending
yet the metal hospitals did not!
"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."
- DERRICK: "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."
Your first sentence has the word 'tries'. Does this mean it sometimes
concerns itself with morality?
Certainly you would see a murderer as being insane as well of criminal.
- DERRICK: "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."
I understand this comment, and understand that you have more firsthand
experience with people insane.
- DERRICK: 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?
No I certainly do not think that it is well to do such things. I also
understand that there are some people who have lost control of themselfs a
become insane in that way. I beleive that you have to help these people who
suffer from depression.
- DERRICK: Do you suggest that these people be left untreated?
No I am not suggesting that these people are to be left untreated. It is the
way they are cured that puzzles me. Please explain to me Derrick how do you
deal with these people.
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
Yes indeed many of your patients are clinically sick, but there are always
exceptions. I am not sure why Robert M Pirsig was classified as being
insane. Was it just because of his thoughts about life?
DERRICK: 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. :-)
Derrick I understand your objections but you did not have to be so
dominaring in your reply. I was bothered by how you put YOU in capitals.
Even though I am not a phychlogist and still like to have my say and I am
sorry if it offended you. Lets get on with the discussion and be friendly
with each other.
Thank you for reading,
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:42 BST