|
Post by Admin on Dec 27, 2017 8:29:54 GMT
This society is as much the problem as the condition / experiences imo. www.hindustantimes.com/pune-news/saving-schizophrenics-behaviour-of-society-crucial-in-treating-mental-disorders/story-5OLBt4a363aaD19fAvr29H.htmlNightbreed / Cabal by Clive Barker - "The Country of the Blind" by H. G. Wells - The Chrysalids by John Wyndham - any of the original books by Philip K d*ck - are interesting in exploring the question. Anyone that tries to state it's society & it's understandings & treatments of people that's just as much if Not more the problem isn't too well received. R.D. Laing, Carl Jung, John Weir Perry, Loren Mosher, Erich Fromm, Philippe Pinel, Gail Hornstein, Peter A. Levine, Michael Cornwall, & many others. Certainly the direct experience of the 'madman' is pretty much invalidated. www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/4436873.R_D_Laing123 million people slaughtered by Normal people in war in the 20th Century alone - all the realities of this World - & it's Normal!!!?
|
|
|
Post by snowstorm on Dec 27, 2017 13:45:26 GMT
Anyone that tries to state it's society & it's understandings & treatments of people that's just as much if Not more the problem isn't too well received. R.D. Laing, Carl Jung, John Weir Perry, Loren Mosher, Erich Fromm, Philippe Pinel, Gail Hornstein, Peter A. Levine, Michael Cornwall, & many others. Certainly the direct experience of the 'madman' is pretty much invalidated. There can be reason in madness and complete lunacy in regular 'normal' life. People struggling deserve respect, both personal and to help cope with and come to their own understanding of the experience and how to move forward. This takes time and care, which is lacking in general in health provision. I do think as well there's a misapprehension that if someone is going through madness they are not aware what's going on outside themselves, how they are being treated - in my experience that is just not true. Themes pop up in these non ordinary experiences, now why would that be? Those going through them need reassurance and safety, but things like locked doors on wards, injections, inhospitable hospital environments etc. just exacerbate the problem, they don't take into account the fear factor of the experience itself.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 27, 2017 14:30:05 GMT
Anyone that tries to state it's society & it's understandings & treatments of people that's just as much if Not more the problem isn't too well received. R.D. Laing, Carl Jung, John Weir Perry, Loren Mosher, Erich Fromm, Philippe Pinel, Gail Hornstein, Peter A. Levine, Michael Cornwall, & many others. Certainly the direct experience of the 'madman' is pretty much invalidated. There can be reason in madness and complete lunacy in regular 'normal' life. People struggling deserve respect, both personal and to help cope with and come to their own understanding of the experience and how to move forward. This takes time and care, which is lacking in general in health provision. I do think as well there's a misapprehension that if someone is going through madness they are not aware what's going on outside themselves, how they are being treated - in my experience that is just not true. Themes pop up in these non ordinary experiences, now why would that be? Those going through them need reassurance and safety, but things like locked doors on wards, injections, inhospitable hospital environments etc. just exacerbate the problem, they don't take into account the fear factor of the experience itself. i fully agree. i have warmed slightly more to Freud - i have ordered a copy of 'Civilization and Its Discontents' Yes - it's the whole question of Phenomenology, that i don't think that mainstream psychiatry / society has ever properly explored or addressed - those that have tried more to seem to be marginalised, denied & excluded - people such as Jung, John Weir Perry, Loren Mosher & many others. Mainstream psychiatry has very much gone with those that have emphasized psychopathology - a very good example is Karl Jaspers with his work General Psychopathology, which was & still is hugely influential, in which he considered the subjective experiences of madness to be nonsensical. Contrasted with the actual direct lives & experiences of the people that have been through it all. A very good resources of such stories is with Gail Hornstein - www.gailhornstein.com/bio.htmAlthough Phenomenology is obviously very much a central theme of psychiatry - i just don't know how well a lot people within orthodox psychiatry do it - i did get a copy of The Maudlsey Reader in Phenomenological Psychiatry, but it is very dry, & frankly boring. bjp.rcpsych.org/content/204/1/84 The Man Who Drew Triangles: Magician, mystic, or out of his mind? by Haraldur Erlendsson, Keith Hagenbach Is more interesting - & explores the questions at a bit more depth - www.thebookbag.co.uk/reviews/index.php?title=The_Man_Who_Drew_Triangles:_Magician,_mystic_or_out_of_his_mind%3F_by_Haraldur_Erlendsson_and_Keith_Hagenbach Transpersonal Ecosophy, Vol. 1: Theory, Methods and Clinical Assessments: Volume 1 by Mark A. Schroll Is also interesting from a more non pathological / non psychiatric view of non-ordinary experiences - Presenting speech / behaviour / symptomatology simply often doesn't match up with the inner World; thoughts, feelings, emotions, states of consciousness & perceptions of the individual. The individuals actual life & experiences & how they have experienced, understood & perceived it all, often doesn't match up with the way others perceive & understand it all, especially through certain other lenses, such as biomedical psychiatry, certain schools of psychology etc. i suppose it can get very complex - look at how differently people with different cultural, religious, political, economic & other World views see things as well. Very interesting question as well as to what & why some things are considered to be a psychopathology (mental illness) & other things aren't. & subsequently how different people are treated based on those definitions.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 27, 2017 14:42:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 27, 2017 16:34:18 GMT
We are all unique individuals, & on one level live within our own reality bubble. We also all share the World - & have to live within the social / cultural systems human civilisation consists of, & certainly the economic, political & religious realities has a lot of impact on how we are - as do the media, scientific & other systems.
Consensus, establishment, scientific, spiritual realities are obviously open to different interpretations as to what the actual full extent of reality actually is - Not to also deny the realities of the psychoses & delusional experiences as well.
This is where i have been & am confused about certain things, but isn't that by definition part of the nature of what comes under the psychoses / schizophrenia.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 27, 2017 16:37:39 GMT
There can be reason in madness and complete lunacy in regular 'normal' life. People struggling deserve respect, both personal and to help cope with and come to their own understanding of the experience and how to move forward. This takes time and care, which is lacking in general in health provision. I do think as well there's a misapprehension that if someone is going through madness they are not aware what's going on outside themselves, how they are being treated - in my experience that is just not true. Themes pop up in these non ordinary experiences, now why would that be? Those going through them need reassurance and safety, but things like locked doors on wards, injections, inhospitable hospital environments etc. just exacerbate the problem, they don't take into account the fear factor of the experience itself. Yes - very much so - people need kinder, more compassionate & humane understanding & treatment.
|
|
|
Post by snowstorm on Dec 27, 2017 19:11:30 GMT
Yes - it's the whole question of Phenomenology, that i don't think that mainstream psychiatry / society has ever properly explored or addressed - those that have tried more to seem to be marginalised, denied & excluded - people such as Jung, John Weir Perry, Loren Mosher & many others. Mainstream psychiatry has very much gone with those that have emphasized psychopathology - a very good example is Karl Jaspers with his work General Psychopathology, which was & still is hugely influential, in which he considered the subjective experiences of madness to be nonsensical. Contrasted with the actual direct lives & experiences of the people that have been through it all. A very good resources of such stories is with Gail Hornstein - www.gailhornstein.com/bio.htmAlthough Phenomenology is obviously very much a central theme of psychiatry - i just don't know how well a lot people within orthodox psychiatry do it - i did get a copy of The Maudlsey Reader in Phenomenological Psychiatry, but it is very dry, & frankly boring. bjp.rcpsych.org/content/204/1/84 The Man Who Drew Triangles: Magician, mystic, or out of his mind? by Haraldur Erlendsson, Keith Hagenbach 'The Man Who Drew Triangles' looks like an interesting read. I guess one difficulty with phenomenology is that it takes time to practise and people get limited contact time with psychiatrists. Another factor is trust. It can be very challenging to trust when going through an episode, there's a conflict with talking about experiences to the very person who can potentially increase medication. Why do even first episode patients, who probably would have no knowledge of side effects, rightly or wrongly often want to refuse medication? Is it because of trust issues or some knowledge that they want to work through an experience in a different way? Of course there is always the 'lack of insight' argument used - what is 'insight'? - It's a complicated area.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 27, 2017 19:33:27 GMT
'The Man Who Drew Triangles' looks like an interesting read. I guess one difficulty with phenomenology is that it takes time to practise and people get limited contact time with psychiatrists. Another factor is trust. It can be very challenging to trust when going through an episode, there's a conflict with talking about experiences to the very person who can potentially increase medication. Why do even first episode patients, who probably would have no knowledge of side effects, rightly or wrongly often want to refuse medication? Is it because of trust issues or some knowledge that they want to work through an experience in a different way? Of course there is always the 'lack of insight' argument used - what is 'insight'? - It's a complicated area. Yes. Prodromal & first episode psychosis does seem to be especially significant & with a lot of argument & debate as to how it should all be best addressed & treated / responded to. Areas of trust are especially significant. i am sure that people within first episode psychosis could be far better responded to, treated & helped to far better longer term prognosis & healing in most cases.
|
|