Mental illness vs. mental problem
Related Topics
Qexugir ustu...@sympatico.ca
The term "mental illness" is based on a pathological model of mental states. This involves the belief that there is a single "normal" mental state and that every different mental state is "abnormal" and needs to be "cured". Of course, the "normal" mental state is understood to be the mental state of psychiatrists, who are bland and untroubled by life because they are so bland. People with a sharper experience of life are going to have mental states of which a psychiatrist is not capable, and the belief in "mental illness" only gives the psychiatrist an excuse to try to annihilate everything that is different from himself. So I find the term "mental illness" extremely problematic.
The term "mental problem" can broadly be defined as a tendency to behave counterproductively across situations. A person has a mental problem if he routinely does things that do not advance his cause, deter from his cause, or have the same effect on other people he cares for and whose cause he would like to advance. A person with a mental problem is someone who defeats his purpose by the way he thinks about things and the way he behaves. I think most people, if not all people, have mental problems from time to time; the ones who are of most concern have chronic, enduring, across-the-board ones, which are usually related to profound questions about their life, the value of things, and their purpose.
It would follow that the treatment for a chronic mental problem should be teaching and guidance rather than chemical amputation, yet in some cases, such as my cases, chemical amputation seems necessary. I know I can't function without the meds because I've tried. Any comments?
Qexugir
palomoosc ...@aol.com (PalomoOscuro)
I agree with much of what you said. I believe chemical amputation - a very appropriate description of it, I think - should only be used in very extreme cases. Basically, if you are a threat to others or to yourself. Someone in this ng once said you also can't be "foolish". I'm not sure if this is the law everywhere in the USA, or just in New York. I personally think a person should have a right to be a little stupid from time to time, so long as he can function in society.
palomoosc ...@aol.com (PalomoOscuro)
And I agree, that psychiatrists are often bland, because they're used to their silver spoons, which are often down to them by their daddies and mommies. The same goes for much of the wealthy in general. Don't expect understanding, because they're used to living by their own mirrors.
But this is my last post for now. I had better show the ng some respect, even though I do happen to be paying for my internet access.
"trinity" gbk_trin...@gmx.de
First, please excuse my bad english, its not my native language, nevertheless i couldnt resist to ask how many people have u met in your life that u would consider to be able to be a teacher and guide concerning 'questions about life, the value of things and their purpose'?
For myself i can say: i wish i knew such a person.
greets t.
"Qexugir" <ustu...@sympatico.ca> schrieb im Newsbeitrag ...
emptylevelso ...@aol.comStillMe (Mike)
Nothing very intelligent here, but I can't function without meds either. I couldn't even get out of bed much before I started taking my mood stabilizer. I can function somewhat without my Abilify if I just stay home all the time and mess with my computer, but if I want to start doing things again like working ( which may be necessary anyway because one can't rely on disability to last forever) or take some courses even for my own enjoyment, I think I will need to have the Abilify. Although, I haven't had the oppurtunity to test it in a really stressful situation. That is when I start really having the strong visions and stuff like that.
emptylevelso ...@aol.comStillMe (Mike)
Ooops. I didn't mean you weren't intelligent. i meant I don't have any intelligent comments to add. I am sorry if it seemed like I said that.
damod ...@webtv.net
What pisses me off is I seem to have been unable to identify any stressors or dietary or other causes for my episodic symptoms. It REALLY makes me think I'm nuts but I try to evade that conclusion.
I also seem to be drug resistant as well.
That pisses me off too because there's nothing that can be effectively done when my "visitors" show up.
At least not by anyone else but myself......
PISSED?.....certainly.
I refute the biochemical explainatios but I am aware because of a few tests done that I have lots of dopamine.
But cutting the dopamine is certainly only a last resort as it kills my sponataneity and creativeity and sprit. You have a cold your nose runs.....you get "visitors" or "voices" your brain chemstry is effected, thats what I think....
So even if I choose to be a zombie they still come through, and often even more clearly. And then I have the mega blahs to deal with as well as the "internals".
Ya know?
Nuts if I do, nut is I don't.
Still, I must declare I am functioning at a reasonably high level.
t ...@webtv.net (cloud bank)
I would define "mental illness" as a state of mind that renders the individual dysfunctional. The individual with this illness might appraise his or her own thought processes as problematic, to the extent that these processes would become unreliable for normal functioning (sleeping, waking, dressing, eating, working, etc) These thought processes might then become detached from quotidian concerns and center on metaphysical visions, trauma from the past, etc. I think the "normal" state of which you speak is the one where I can confirm that my mind is ok, and that my behaviour is appropriate to the life situations that I experience. So why chemical treatment? One reason might be, as you say, to "amputate" the critical facility which sees the thought processes as unreliable, and to help the individual "forget" for a time why it was that they were considered unreliable. I don't think teaching and guidance apply at this point, except to restore basic social skills.
Hopefully, the individual recovers the critical facility and comes to understand why the thought processes were considered unreliable, and takes the necessary steps to rectify the problem. Really, only the individual has the key to unlock the puzzle, but I think the psychiatrist is there to help us find the key, and provide much-needed support in the search.
Qexugir ustu...@sympatico.ca
You bring up an issue I hadn't addressed: at what point should a person's freedom to choose be taken away? Does he have to be suicidal, or pull knives on total strangers, or is it enough that he is doing things that make his life worse and the lives of those around him harder to handle? I'll let other people speak on this point and consider what they have to say before I voice an opinion.
Qexugir
Qexugir ustu...@sympatico.ca
<grin> Yes, I was wondering about that. Thanks for the clarification. And thanks for letting me know how you cope with and without medication, because there seem to be people who have even gotten off their meds completely and never had a problem again.
Qexugir
Qexugir ustu...@sympatico.ca
This is how I define "mental problem". The phrase "mental illness" seems to refer quite definitely to a pathological model of mental states. Has that model been abandoned by treating agencies? Also, how is it that everyone seems to become dysfunctional from time to time in small ways, even people who are not diagnosed as mentally ill?
Except that it's almost a universal experience that people with chronic mental problems don't know they have them. I spent almost two months lying in bed 24 hours a day, talking to nonexistent people, before it occurred to me by some miracle that maybe my life wasn't going the way it should be.
For those two months I was unaware of any "abnormality".
Very much so.
I disagree. Almost everyone always believes his mind is OK, especially those people whose minds are not OK according to almost everyone around them. There basically is no "normal" mental state, just a set of behaviours that people find acceptable, and which have been falsely translated to the mental states of certain spiritually shallow people. It's not "abnormal" to have deep existential questions in your head just because the person prescribing your medication has never had them.
I have trouble understanding this. In my view a person's "critical facility" actually breaks down in the case of mental problems, and this happens by definition. Medication can help restore it. Teaching and guidance by social workers may restore basic social skills, but there is a need for teaching and guidance to answer the fundamental questions that arise when one is no longer content to see the world as some other people see it. If someone recovering from a psychotic episode is asking himself: "Who am I, why do I exist, and what is the purpose of my life?" I agree that a social worker is the worst person you can send him to, but he might still need help to be able to answer those questions to his satisfaction. He would definitely be foolish to ignore them.
Psychiatrists can incidentally help the patient, but their main skill is signing their name on a prescription pad. Their main purpose is the same as the main purpose of all doctors, i.e., inside sales, or selling medications, treatments, and diagnostic tests to consumers of those things. I say this after having had seven psychiatrists and having studied them like rats while they were treating me.
Qexugir
Qexugir ustu...@sympatico.ca
Ug. I don't know what the ICD is either. Me Grog. Grog has two head, two arms, two legs, and no torso. Grog has big beard. Grog stupid.
Qexugir
"trinity" gbk_trin...@gmx.de
...this might help Grog:-) : http://www.a-silver-lining.org/BPNDepth/codes.html "Qexugir" <ustu...@sympatico.ca> schrieb im Newsbeitrag ...
t ...@webtv.net (cloud bank)
I don't know what ICD is either,but DSM IV is probably the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,Fourth Edition". As to the previous, you are probably correct that mental illness refers to a pathological model. But I don't think it is a model of mental states but of dysfunction that is realized in the attitudes and behavior of the distressed individual. And the individual is distressed because of the conscious or sub-conscious conviction of the unreliability of their cognitive and maybe perceptual abilities. The individual having the disorder may or may not be aware of its(critical facility) ultimate causality, but it would probably help to be aware of it to achieve the "cure". If a person can survive the first or second truly disturbing life experience, where there is deep depression or suicidal thoughts, being treated with psychotropic medications and therapy, I think the person will achieve the dimension of conscious thought where the "ground of being" emerges, and this "critical facility" will be understood. Yes, right. There is no "normal" state of mind. My point is that most people who are diagnosed as mentally ill are not going to harm themselves or anyone else, They just haven't sufficiently addressed the problem of heading off the "barbarians" at the gates. And one of the best ways is to have confidence in one's pattern of thought, no matter how oddly considered is the behavior that results.
Qexugir ustu...@sympatico.ca
Thanks. If it contains references to "infantilism" or "penis envy", I promise to wipe my butt with it the second I get a copy and have a washroom urge.
So you're saying mental illness is a matter of how a person behaves? It may be that to the psychiatrist, who can only observe behaviour and really has no interest in what is going on inside a person's head - he considers it all delusion or aberrant thought. Yet an understanding of the patient's mental state may be critical to what is going on here - it is certainly critical to the patient. I don't believe in dismissing a person's thoughts just because someone else doesn't think them. I also point out that the concept of "dysfunction" requires a prior concept of proper function, and if we're at all on the same page, it starts with the function of the mind which then translates itself into behaviour. Put simply, mental problems are mental, not behavioural. A behavioural explanation of mental problems is superficial and serves the psychiatrist, not the patient.
Sorry, are you saying that, deep down, a person with mental problems knows that his mind isn't working right, and this knowledge is really the crux of the problem he or she is having? I apologize if I'm misreading you, but that seems to be what you're saying.
I would say awareness of it is critical. Otherwise, you can't really help the person cope with their mental problems or perhaps solve them. All you can do is put him on a variety of poisons that deaden his moods and emotions and turn him into a walking zombie who still hears voices or still is paranoid, but doesn't bother other people because he doesn't do anything at all. I hope this is no longer the goal of psychiatry.
No cappiche. What does that mean? Sorry if I seem obtuse.
I see things in exactly the opposite way. A person with mental problems that can't be "cured" has to do that extremely difficult thing, which is to trust other people more than he trusts himself. Having perfect faith in oneself when one is paranoid only leads to paranoid behaviour and a resistance to attempts to help. I have created a support system among my family, friends, and coworkers where everyone is encouraged to say "Qex, you're acting weird today" the moment they notice anything, because I sure as heck am not going to notice it. In that small way, I value their opinions of my behaviour more than I value my own. It's an extremely difficult thing to do, because every person is based on the fact that s/he has a perspective, so the natural and effortless thing to do is just look out from behind one's own eyes. Having confidence in one's pattern of thought is usually part of a mental problem, not its solution.
Qexugir
t ...@webtv.net (cloud bank)
Mental Illness = Behavior Problem? I am not saying that. It's probably called "mental" mostly because there is no defined physiological reason for it, neurons and synapses notwithstanding. What I am saying is that the sufferer manifests the disorder in behaviour and attitudes, or facial expressions, contortions, etc, the types of things that tell family, friends, physicians that the person needs help. But these people can't see or understand the visions, voices, thoughts or thought processes that are occurring in the sufferer's mind. And for the most part, these well-meaning individuals will therefore ***ure the sufferer that these things are meaningless or without merit, and recommend their own substitute thought processes. Well, as someone who was diagnosed as mentally ill many years ago, and who has come to a reasonable compromise with this bitter earth and its people, I cherish my visions and inspirations. So many years ago the initial traumatic experiences of my life caused me to doubt my sanity. After years of searching and struggling, I essentially picked up my life where I had left it off.
And the thought processes that I had doubted, those processes that so much defined me, I can now again rely on and be ***ured of, and act on.
Qexugir ustu...@sympatico.ca
I think I understand what you are saying now. You're lucky that you were able to pick up where you left off, because I had to rebuild my life from nothing.
Qexugir
ecc ...@a-znet.com (ge)
You might find the writings of Thomas Sz*** of interest. He is a p-doc, though quite at odds with the professional mainstream. He suggests the phrase "problems in living" in place of a pathological model. George
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Qexugir ustu...@sympatico.ca
Thanks for the reference.
Qexugir
"mark scorfield" ow...@trade5.com
...and the problem with it is the attribution of blame to the person who has the problem - the universal scapegoat. i read in the paper the other day that there are thousands of people with negative as opposed to positve mental health issues in prison in America(because of a lack of capacity to cope in normal systems) where they wear a yellow badge to designate their status . i reckon we all need chemicals occasionally to keep us in balance and a healthy dose of society . ive found my religion (it was allways there) in buddhism: "1. Susukha?§ vata j??v? ma ??
verinesu averino Verinesu manussesu ??
vihar? ma averino. 197.
2. Susukha?§ vata j??v? ma ??
? turesu an? tur?
??turesu manussesu ??
vihar? ma an? tur? . 198.
3. Susukha?§ vata j??v? ma ??
ussukesu anussuk?
Ussukesu manussesu ??
vihar? ma anussuk? . 199.
AMONGST THE HATEFUL BE WITHOUT HATE AMONGST THE SICK BE IN GOOD HEALTH AMONGST THE P***IONATE BE WITHOUT P***ION 1. Ah, happily do we live without hate amongst the hateful; amidst hateful men we dwell unhating. 197.
2. Ah, happily do we live in good health 1 amongst the ailing; amidst ailing men we dwell in good health. 198.
3. Ah, happily do we live without yearning (for sensual pleasures) amongst those who yearn (for them); amidst those who yearn (for them) we dwell without yearning. 199.
Story A quarrel arose between two tribes with regard to the waters of a boundary river. The Buddha admonished them to live without hate. " ...
emptylevelso ...@aol.comStopSpam (Mike)
<snip> What type of Buddism do you practice, zen, theravaden, or any other type?
"trinity" gbk_trin...@gmx.de
Hi qexugir, as an aside to the post of george: here is the link to the homepage of thomas szasz http://www.szasz.com/ i stumbled across it today in another newsgroup where someone defined a position that there is no *mental illness* and gave his *proof* for this view. if u want ill translate his chain of arguments for u, cause its written in german, but maybe you will find the same in the link above in english, not sure though.
greets t.
"Qexugir" <ustu...@sympatico.ca> schrieb im Newsbeitrag ...
t ...@webtv.net (cloud bank)
On George's recommendation, I picked up "Schizophrena" by Thomas Szasz at the library. Interesting premise made, somewhat hammered home in the book, that mental illness is a metaphor used by psychiatrists, where actually the "patient" is a prisoner, the "physician" is a warden, and the "mental hospital" is a prison. He mentions that the "illness" cl***ification was invented in the early part of the twentieth century, and that it is pressure from society in general, and the family and acquaintances of the tiresome "affected" in particular, that influenced the good doctors to agree on such an invention.
I am on the fence about this, not that it hasn't occured to me that there was such a paradigm. I haven't gotten so far in the reading to know what he thinks the problem could be, if indeed it is not an illness. He makes some references to "deviancy" and "madness" but makes no overt claims yet. Over all, he is debunkng the work of Freud, Jung, the lesser known Bleuler and others to stake his own claim that psychiatry is not a valid branch of medicine.
He's got to publish too, so I guess the more outrageous the claim, the more books will sell. But he does give one pause.
Qexugir ustu...@sympatico.ca
Thanks. If it's not too much trouble, please let me know what this fellow's "proof" that there is no such thing as mental illness is. I've stated my view on the matter - the term "mental illness" presupposes that there is a "normal" mental state, which is the mental state of your psychiatrist; and I reject that that mental state is "normal" for everyone. But I'd like to know what this other guy said.
Qexugir
| To Top |