The odd thing, to me at least, is the depth of Meta's resistance. — creativesoul

My resistance is simple defence. That person, unenlightened, attacked the creative function of all individual human minds, claiming the mind is a "responsive sensitivity". It was then insinuated that as an individual person, I am not real, I am an hallucination. It is not a selfishness which I express, because defence is concerned with the motives of the attacker, not the self which is being defended.

I put it to the reader that Meta has shown few, if any, original thought/belief. Parroting another's ancient argument or extrapolating upon it without overt mention doesn't count as a private mental ongoing, unless that which has been made public for centuries counts as being private... — creativesoul

Now you have attacked me personally, with the charge of plagiarism. If you have any reason whatsoever to believe that anything which I wrote in this thread has already been said by another person before me, then show me, get right to it and produce your evidence, in the form of a quote please, with reference.

What I want to avoid, and for us all to avoid, is any suggestion in this discussion that 'I' or 'we' speak (for) the collective mind. Imagine one neurone claiming to have 'the answer'. — unenlightened

No problem. I didn't suggest anything of the sort Un.

The analogy is a gross oversimplification. Humans are not equivalent to neurons in the way that we need be if this analogy is to be appropriately employed as a means to make a point about what we, as individuals, can or cannot know about the notion of a collective mind.

Again I think/believe that I understand what you're getting at, or at least what we're all suppose to be trying to get at in this discussion. However, this bit about suggesting that 'I' or 'we' speak (for) the collective mind seems to be headed in the direction of setting the collective mind outside the boundaries of the individual's knowledge capability. I mean, I'm reminded of Kant's Noumenon, or the unknown realm. If that is what you have in mind with regard to the collective mind, then it serves only as an untenable negative limit on our discourse, an unnecessarily self-imposed full-stop in this endeavor none-the-less.

Are you suggesting that knowing anything at all about the collective mind is not possible simply because we're but one part of it? Tell me that I've misattributed meaning somewhere along the line and thus misunderstood you.

creative wrote:I want to attempt to ascertain, determine, and/or set out what exactly an individual adopts from the collective, particularly with regard to self-worth, self-value, self-awareness, etc. It seems to me that that would be a good method for working towards your aim, as well as perhaps helping to explain some of the reasons why that particular style of therapy is and/or would be so effective/affective.

Un replied:When members of a 'primitive' tribe visit the West, one of the things they find hardest to understand is how we can, in so much abundance wealth and power, abide that our brothers are homeless and hungry on our streets. To them it looks like an untended wound. To the disconnected individual it is not even apparent that this untended wound is the price of self regard.

Yes. It seems to me that there are a number of reasons for the discrepancy, including but certainly not limited to; population size, the size of the area/country, technological advances, and more than all else - moral thought/belief. Seems to me that from a methodological naturalist bent, the 'primitive' people, particularly those in smaller groups, have much more to lose on a personal level by virtue of another member of the group suffering. Co-dependence between trustworthy people is not a bad thing. I would strongly assert that it is utterly imperative to the survival of such groups and thus quite possibly everyone in it.

The odd thing, to me at least, is the depth of Meta's resistance.
— creativesoul

My resistance is simple defence. That person, unenlightened, attacked the creative function of all individual human minds, claiming the mind is a "responsive sensitivity". It was then insinuated that as an individual person, I am not real, I am an hallucination. It is not a selfishness which I express, because defence is concerned with the motives of the attacker, not the self which is being defended. — Metaphysician Undercover

What if there was no attack? Then what?

I put it to the reader that Meta has shown few, if any, original thought/belief. Parroting another's ancient argument or extrapolating upon it without overt mention doesn't count as a private mental ongoing, unless that which has been made public for centuries counts as being private...
— creativesoul

Now you have attacked me personally, with the charge of plagiarism. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's just plain false.

If you have any reason whatsoever to believe that anything which I wrote in this thread has already been said by another person before me, then show me, get right to it and produce your evidence, in the form of a quote please, with reference.

Who needs evidence when good old-fashioned common sense does the trick just fine?

Think about it a minute Meta...

Did you invent the strict notion of "same" and/or "sameness" that you employed earlier when talking to Wosret? Seemed like it was based upon Heraclitus' bit about not stepping into the same river twice. What about the law of identity, did you invent that? Did you come up with that all by yourself, or does ancient Greek thought/belief underpin your writing?

I'm trying to show you the obvious while developing the topic.

There's something very very odd about one using language that is not of his/her own creation to claim that everything that they think, believe, mean, and/or write is entirely of their own and no one else has ever thought, believed, meant, and/or written the same thing...

That's odd, if course, because the author did not invent the language. The author has learned how to talk about him/herself as an individual solely by virtue of what those(and lots of other) words meant long before the author learned how to use them...

Seemed like it was based upon Heraclitus' bit about not stepping into the same river twice. — creativesoul

I didn't say anything about a river, we were talking about thoughts. That's a category difference and you're making a category mistake with your accusation.

There's something very very odd about one using language that is not of his/her own creation to claim that everything that they think, believe, mean, and/or write is entirely of their own and no one else has ever thought, believed, meant, and/or written the same thing... — creativesoul

There's nothing odd there. The creative person uses the material available to create something new. The creation is in the form. We make patterns. Meaning is not in the words, it is in the way that the words are used, context. A new form is a new object. So despite the fact that the subject matter, the content, might be as old as the hills, new form implies necessarily, new thought.

The issue is the question of priority. If we cannot speak other than what was spoken before, then there will never be anything new said, and we are faced with infinite regress. If it is true that we speak something new, then we must account for this newness within our thoughts. This is our individuality. To deny this individuality is to force us into the absurdity of infinite regress, with the proposition that anything which has ever been said has already been said before that.

Telling people, that they ought to conform, by following accepted conventions is one thing. But telling people that they have no choice but to conform, because they are a product of their environment is the determinist lie. I believe that the indiscriminate use of the determinist lie, which is proposed in this thread, does more harm than good.

However, this bit about suggesting that 'I' or 'we' speak (for) the collective mind seems to be headed in the direction of setting the collective mind outside the boundaries of the individual's knowledge capability. — creativesoul

Well I do, but only in the sense that I would put the world outside those boundaries. One can know a person very well, but it does not entitle one to speak for them.

Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
But the heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own…

Another analogy - it's all analogy, trying to model of the world as a bunch of words. Thus far am I Kantian, that i acknowledge the limits of language and of thought. But there is no limit to participation.

Seems to me that from a methodological naturalist bent, the 'primitive' people, particularly those in smaller groups, have much more to lose on a personal level by virtue of another member of the group suffering. Co-dependence between trustworthy people is not a bad thing. I would strongly assert that it is utterly imperative to the survival of such groups and thus quite possibly everyone in it. — creativesoul

It is a myth that smaller groups have more to lose, we all have our whole skin in the game, and we will all be destroyed by the people, the feelings, the consciousness that we reject. Co-dependence is the reality of individuated beings, and independence is the dangerous fantasy.

My resistance is simple defence. That person, unenlightened, attacked the creative function of all individual human minds, claiming the mind is a "responsive sensitivity". It was then insinuated that as an individual person, I am not real, I am an hallucination. It is not a selfishness which I express, because defence is concerned with the motives of the attacker, not the self which is being defended.
— Metaphysician Undercover

What if there was no attack? Then what? — creativesoul

From my point of view, I am presenting some ancient but somewhat neglected ideas in the garb of modern speech; an image of man's place in the world. such an image can only be a threat to another image, that lays claim to reality; a claim that is attacked by the mere naming of it as an image.

He is quick, thinking in clear images;
I am slow, thinking in broken images.
He becomes dull, trusting to his clear images;
I become sharp, mistrusting my broken images,

Trusting his images, he assumes their relevance;
Mistrusting my images, I question their relevance.

Assuming their relevance, he assumes the fact,
Questioning their relevance, I question the fact.

When the fact fails him, he questions his senses;
When the fact fails me, I approve my senses.

He continues quick and dull in his clear images;
I continue slow and sharp in my broken images.

He in a new confusion of his understanding;
I in a new understanding of my confusion. — Robert Graves

I asked:

Did you invent the strict notion of "same" and/or "sameness" that you employed earlier when talking to Wosret? Seemed like it was based upon Heraclitus' bit about not stepping into the same river twice. What about the law of identity, did you invent that? Did you come up with that all by yourself, or does ancient Greek thought/belief underpin your writing?

I didn't say anything about a river, we were talking about thoughts. That's a category difference and you're making a category mistake with your accusation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Offering an answer that doesn't address the substance of the questions is not acceptable. Misusing and/or abusing the historical notion of category mistake simply compounds the problems. You alone do not determine what counts as a category mistake.

You need not talk about a river to employ and/or be influenced by Heraclitus. I have not charged you with plagiarism. I'm charging you with neglecting to accept the fact that much of the language we all use was invented and had well-established meaning long before we acquired it. The prima facie evidence to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt was your own writing.

You asserted that all your thought/belief was original to your own individual and private mental ongoings. In doing so, you employed the key term "same" in a well known historical manner as a means of justifying your assertions that no one, not even you, can have the same thought. That is precisely how Heraclitus used the term. You employed the term "same" in the well known historical sense.

I simply pointed it out.

What I said directly above is true. Your belief isn't necessary. The reader, should s/he be unfamiliar with Heraclitus, can quickly research him and with quick read can ascertain for themselves - all by themselves - that you have indeed employed the term "same" in the well known historical sense.

Your awareness of that isn't necessary. However, ignorance would be the only condition under which your participation would ring honest/sincere. If you already knew, then you're not arguing in good faith.

Now, since you've made it a point to place others here under suspicion...

Are you denying using the term "same" in a manner consistent with ancient Greek thought/belief?

Are you saying that you are completely unaware of Heraclitus, and his notions of "same" and the flux as it pertains to his bit about stepping into the same river twice? Are you saying that you're not aware of and/or familiar with any of the other ancient Greek thought, such as the law of identity?

It is a myth that smaller groups have more to lose, we all have our whole skin in the game, and we will all be destroyed by the people, the feelings, the consciousness that we reject. Co-dependence is the reality of individuated beings, and independence is the dangerous fantasy. — unenlightened

On my view the notion of codependence becomes quite a bit more nuanced when comparing the effect/affect that one individual's suffering has upon the group at large.

I think that we largely agree Un.

You've taken one end of the 'spectrum'. Meta has taken the other. I'm acknowledging some of each and more by also acknowledging neither/both.

You need not talk about a river to employ and/or be influenced by Heraclitus. — creativesoul

Oh, so being influenced by someone is what you count as having the same thoughts as that person. Get real.

You asserted that all your thought/belief was original to your own individual and private mental ongoings. — creativesoul

I am not asserting that all my thoughts and beliefs are original to myself, I am asserting that I have original thoughts, and therefore I have private mental ongoings. It doesn't require that all my thoughts are original to conclude that I have private mental ongoings, all that is required is that I have some originality.

The point is that unenlightened denied the reality of individuality, suggesting that it is an hallucination, that the belief in it is an illness, or something like that. I am not denying the reality of inter-subjectivity, communion, what we call "society", I am questioning the motives in giving higher priority to this perceived unity, over the perceived unity of the individual.

It appears to me like the unity of community cannot be given priority without denying the reality of the individual, whereas if the individual is given priority, then the individual may have respect for the community as well.

This is all related to the way that we conceive of the relationship between the parts and the whole. To say that something is a "part" is to imply necessarily that there is something, a whole, which the part participates in. The part cannot exist as an individual because by definition it partakes in the whole. To give the part individual existence is to divide the whole, and say that the part is no longer a part, it is an individual. So this perspective, which gives priority to the whole, in this way, denies the possibility of the individual existence of the thing which is called "the part", simply by designating it as a "part"..

From my perspective, the individual is given existence as a whole, and therefore is not necessarily a part of anything. But from within the individual, there comes the desire to be a part of a whole. The whole, which is the inter-subjective community, has real existence within the mind of the individual, as that which is wanted, but it does not have physical existence, as that which is actual, like the unity of the individual has. So my perspective allows that both unities are real unities, one being within the mind, as a desired end, unlike unenlightened's proposed perspective which renders one of the unities within the mind, an hallucination, the result of illness. So in reality, unenlightened's perspective is the illness because it renders one of the two types of real unities as unreal.

Oh, so being influenced by someone is what you count as having the same thoughts as that person. Get real. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's not what I said.

You employed the key term "same" in a well known historical manner as a means of justifying your assertions that no one, not even you, can have the same thought. That is precisely how Heraclitus used the term. You employed the term "same" in the well known historical sense.

I simply pointed it out.

I am not asserting that all my thoughts and beliefs are original to myself, I am asserting that I have original thoughts, and therefore I have private mental ongoings. It doesn't require that all my thoughts are original to conclude that I have private mental ongoings, all that is required is that I have some originality. — Metaphysician Undercover

That I would agree with. The earlier bit about no one, not even yourself, having the same thought was rubbish...

So, Levinas' perspective on intersubjectivity can be summarized as: the "alter" in "alter-ego" is suppressed while the "ego" (familiarity, because it's like me) is focused on exclusively. We see this reasoning in Husserl's attempt to avoid solipsism and Heidegger's Mitsein - both espouse a form of solitude in which the rest of the world is constructed and understood in reference to.

In opposition to this stands Levinas, who recognized the radical difference of alterity, how the Other, in a event, surprises us, or allude to there being something that is not of our comprehension or ability to assimilate into the Same. There's a horror in the face of the Other than remains Other (and not simply an other that can be assimilated into ourselves).

Really, it's this mysterious approach of the enigma that makes it patently clear that we are not the only ones who exist and that there is most certainly Others. idk is this what this discussion is about?

I don't think so, or not quite, anyway. It seems that both the views you identify start with the ego. If I were you I wouldn't start from here.

Rather I want to question where the idea of self, and the idea of interiority come from. Once they are given, solipsism becomes possible, the other becomes possible, morality/immorality becomes possible.

How (and why) does one come to draw the boundaries of self, so as to separate self from world? It seems to me to be just as mysterious as the drawing of national boundaries. One side of the river is self, and the other side is foreign, but if you follow the river back to its source, there is no division.

It seems to make sense to say that the world is alive; not that it is nothing but life, but there is life in the world that is the world's life. So there is awareness that is the world's awareness. So from that source, how do you and I arrive at this downstream position of radical separation? Everyone wants to say that the source is imaginary, and the boundaries are real. Everyone except me.

I just stole this from wosret in the shout box.

https://www.ted.com/talks/mariano_sigman_your_words_may_predict_your_future_mental_health#t-5899

Suppose this algorithmic neuro-babble has some validity; that the nature of consciousness develops in historical time. Then there is strong evidence that the social mind is prior to the individual mind which emerges from it. And it turns out I'm not the only one after all.

I posted it because what you said above reminded me of it, so really you posted it. That's how this works now.

Rather I want to question where the idea of self, and the idea of interiority come from. Once they are given, solipsism becomes possible, the other becomes possible, morality/immorality becomes possible. — unenlightened

The problem is that interiority and externality necessarily arise together. They are conceptual only, and both rely on each other. Like positive and negative, they are just opposites.

How (and why) does one come to draw the boundaries of self, so as to separate self from world? It seems to me to be just as mysterious as the drawing of national boundaries. One side of the river is self, and the other side is foreign, but if you follow the river back to its source, there is no division. — unenlightened

So there is no real boundary between interior and exterior as they are both inherently tied together within understanding, as opposing directions. One is not separated from the other, they are tied together in conception. But as two directions, up and down, toward the positive, or toward the negative, hotter or colder, they are very real. Therefore we can look toward the external, or toward the internal, and these are very real directions, without any real boundary between the internal and the external. They are just principles of orientation.

We can say that the river has a beginning and the river has an end, but the only boundary between these two is the river itself. Now the river is a real boundary. It is not the boundary between the two sides, it is the boundary between the beginning and the end, just like the self is a real boundary. It is the boundary between the internal and the external. There is no boundary between self and other, the self is the boundary, the boundary between internal and external. Therefore the boundary is not real unless the subject, as self, is real, because the boundary is completely subjective, arbitrarily produced by the subject. The real boundary is not between self and other, as the self is the real boundary between the internal unknowns and the external unknowns. Remove the subject, and there is no boundary, no internal, no external, no beginning nor ending. And as much as these opposing terms are imaginary, without the individual imagining them, there is nothing without them.

We can say that the river has a beginning and the river has an end, but the only boundary between these two is the river itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

We can say it, but does it mean anything? I would; rather say that the beginning and end of things are their boundaries rather than that things are the boundaries of their beginning and end. It just sounds less like nonsense.

Perhaps it sounds like nonsense, but you are the one suggesting that drawing boundaries is not a sensible way to proceed. So now saying that the boundaries of a thing are the beginning and ending of the thing is not compatible with what you have proposed.

You propose that boundaries are not real. I've shown you how to conceive of this, and that is to make the boundary purely subjective. This means that the boundary is the property of the subject, the subject is the boundary. And this is consistent with what you say, that the subject is not real, and that boundaries are not real. There is nothing here to prevent us from saying that the subject is a boundary. We still have a problem though, because now nothing is real, as everything is incomprehensible without some sort of boundaries. So you need a principle whereby a subject, a boundary, or both, can be real.

If meaning is social then so too is language. If language is the basis for individuality, then individuality has a social basis. I think that that or something like that is an argument in favor of Un's position here...

I agree. Also, the relationship between individual, environment, and group forms the basis of a continuous, circular, process of communication which produces cultural development. — Galuchat

How would you characterize the relation between "individual" and "group"? Is this just a way of speaking about the relations of various individuals in various groupings, associations, communities?

Is the "group" something more than a collection?

Too bad they could not share an actual session with a patient. — Cavacava


Yes indeed, and I cannot find much patient testimony either. It's understandable. The best I can find so far is a couple of case histories here, and this newspaper report. — unenlightened

I'm apprehensive because it could be naive of me to tell you this but I'm a little more comfortable because of anonymity. I have a history of mental illness and I've been told I've had psychotic episodes. I am diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic and subjected to compulsory medication. Trying to ruminate. Having read some of this thread I might be willing to talk if you have any questions?

What is the difference between the virtual and the actual other? Lately I've been digging into Heidegger. Heidegger describes how dasein is for the most part an other, i.e., dasman, i.e., it is not itself. For the most part dasein does what one does as one does it because it's what one does; and dasein understands oneself in terms of how one understands oneself, etc. Dasein is fundamentally constituted as a theyself; even the hermit is a being-with he says. Is it because Heidegger basically looks down upon "the actual" (a present-at-hand concept) that the distinction between the virtual and the actual can never arise for him in his Being and Time? Do the concepts virtual and the actual other only belong to a present-at-hand philosophy? Maybe the phenomenon of the Heideggerian theyself is just at a more basic phenomenological level than the actual and virtual other, which would belong to present-at-hand philosophy?

I think what Heidegger is describing is also more basic than the below Bakhtin quote since before we can adapt our actions to those of others (consciously I assume), we already are, as dasman, an other to ourselves.

Our social identity is constructed by adapting our actions to those of others; and even more, knowing me myself as such is only possible by me seeing myself through the eyes of the other (Bakhtin, 1990).

Yeah I think it's just different levels of phenomenological descriptions.

Well if you have had contact with the Open dialogue method, I'd be very interested in your experiences of it. I don't have any particular questions, except to notice this:

I've been told I've had psychotic episodes. — believenothing

Which is exactly what I've been getting at in the thread, that it is something one is told, has to be told, as one has to be told everything about oneself - to some extent. The narrative self is a community affair.

I think what Heidegger is describing is also more basic than the below Bakhtin quote since before we can adapt our actions to those of others (consciously I assume), we already are, as dasman, an other to ourselves. — bloodninja

I'm not the expert on Heidegger, and I may have misunderstood, but he seems to be trying to describe a consciousness apart from human relations, and that to me is like trying to describe a pair of legs walking apart from the rest of the body. My thinking is that the self is the introjected other, and without the other, there would be no distinction of self and world at all.

Trying to ruminate — believenothing

First let me say that I am glad you shared and I hope you find this a safe place to do so, for without sharing there is no way to know one another.
I quoted you above because it made me wonder if you are trying to ruminate or trying to stop ruminating. I am the opposite in that without medication I have a great deal of difficulty in not ruminating. I have learned skills and tools to deal with through CBT Cognitive Behavioral Therapy but nothing put the ruminating to bed until the addition of medication.
I hope you read this and understand that you are in no way alone in your challenge but as long as you keep talking, keep thinking, there is no way you cannot grow to a greater understanding of yourself, which is why many of us are attracted to Philosophy.
Warmest regards,
Tiff

Fair enough. But Heidegger is explicitly not describing consciousness. Being in the world, for him, is more basic than consciousness or unconsciousness. This is why he is such an original thinker. He is describing how we are the world existingly

Identity is fragmentation, and dishonesty is insanity. That alone is enough to rock my world. — unenlightened

Oh really? >:O Is that it, dishonesty is insanity, and it rocked your world? Is that why when I told you that one of Peterson's core teachings is the centrality of honesty in the prevention and treatment of psychopathy, you laughed at me, and said it is trivial? >:O

Anyway - I've been looking at this thread, and my comments are as follows:
• The video (& articles) do not offer practical information about what actually goes on in Open Dialogue - that the process of conversation is open, transparent, honest, puts the patient in control, involves their family and social environment - that is all well and good. But that's not the secret. Many GOOD therapists (psychologists) are already doing that anyway. So these people from Finland are keeping secrets - either their results are not as great as they claim them to be - OR - they don't want to share their real secret.
• Personally, I think psychology or therapy should be about making the person stronger, so that they can better withstand the viscitudes of life - regardless of what life throws at them.
• Wosret offers some good insights in this thread.


My personal encounter with mental illness is through having suffered and being diagnosed with generalised anxiety disorder, hypochondria, panic attacks, and OCD. I was given benzodiazepines, antipsychotics and SSRIs - there was very little talk therapy, and anyway, the therapists could not keep up with me, nor could address my concerns, which they would attempt to sidestep, or cast as irrelevant - they did not know how to respond to my questions - which were philosophical in nature. Like how can I address uncertainty? How do I deal with the possibility of having a life-threatening illness (or acquiring it)? Etc.

So, I decided, by myself (which I think is an important part of treatment), that I need to stop seeing my therapists and get off the pills. So I told my therapist that this is my intention, and they slowly got me off the pills, until the only pill I was taking was the SSRI at reduced dosage. Then they refused to take me off that, so I just stopped going, and cut it out myself. Some of the withdrawal symptoms were quite bad, so then I determined that I need to find a good psychologist, who can help teach me better ways to navigate in the world. Sort of like my own personal advisor, that's how I thought about it. Like Alexander had Aristotle basically, except that, you know, I'd only see them 1 hour or so a week. So then I was lucky, and found one good psychologist, who introduced me to mindfulness, got me to practice it, and helped me develop exactly along the lines that I wanted to. I would give him a task - saying, I want this - and he would have to tell me about how to get there. For example, one time I told him - look, I am bored at having to do the dishes everyday, I feel that I cannot enjoy the everydayness of life, and am always looking for something special, and this is a problem for me, and I want to get rid of it - I want to be able to enjoy the everydayness of life, and not have to look for special things, because most of life is made up of everyday things, not big things. And so, he gave me exercises to practice when feeling bored, he motivated me to stick with the mindfulness past the boring phase, etc.

So anyway, that was exceedingly helpful and got me to make what was effectively a full recovery - it got me to the point where I had overcome all the symptoms pretty much, and became relatively high functioning again. Then came the problem of dependence, because, alright, I had managed this, but I was still dependent on the psychologist to guide me. A moment comes when the student has to assert independence over the master and stand on his own feet. So then I thanked him, and quit seeing him as well. And then using the tools I got there, I slowly expanded back, and stood on my own feet again.

I can say that two things saved me - (1) my decision to take responsibility for myself, and look for solutions (which in this case involved finding the right people, knowing how to get what I wanted out of them, and deciding not to be dependent on them forever), and (2) my psychologist who was extremely helpful, and without his advice and mentorship I would not have overcome this. So part of it is individual - you need to have that grit and determination - it will make you do what it takes. Without that, I would probably still be wallowing, stuck in a rut. And part of it is also finding the right people.

I am so happy that you have been saved. :D
But seriously, thanks for your personal account.

Many GOOD therapists (psychologists) are already doing that anyway. So these people from Finland are keeping secrets - either their results are not as great as they claim them to be - OR - they don't want to share their real secret. — Agustino

Yes, I too am a bit frustrated that there is so little of the actual practice or even accounts from clients or case notes available. I think one of the 'secrets' is that they do not operate alone. The patient is seen in their community, and the therapist also brings their community with them. But in a sense, it is not having a secret - not having a theory, or a method to see through and act upon that I suspect makes the radical difference - assuming there is one.

One of the difficulties of measuring the effects of therapy is that it is personal to the extent that the character of the therapist is more important than the theory they espouse. This partly explains why there is often a guru-like emphasis on having been trained by the originator of a therapy. And it means it is impossible to separate the GOOD therapist from the BAD in terms of their method, though one knows who is helpful to one's own situation - or does one? Anyway, the focus on the therapist's own relationships as part of the whole story seems important in Open Dialogue, and that it is brought explicitly into the therapeutic encounter rather than hidden away as 'supervision' as is usual.

I don't have a personal story to relate, in the sense that I have always made myself responsible for my own madness, and so have only been a witness to encounters of others with therapy, the institution and the individuals. Which is not to say that I haven't needed and found help, as you did, but it was under the rubric of education, or friendship, or some such - and the drugs were aways illegal and sporadic.

As to what rocks my world, you missed out the first half, and it is the juxtaposition that makes something non-trivial. If identity is fragmentation, then what is honesty? Who is or isn't honest? But it may not be clear to others what I'm getting at here. I don't think Peterson would accept the first half, so the second half becomes a moralistic dogma, as if one has the truth always available.

As to what rocks my world, you missed out the first half, and it is the juxtaposition that makes something non-trivial. If identity is fragmentation, then what is honesty? — unenlightened

Hmm, but I disagree with your basic premise that identity is fragmentation... and probably so would Peterson. I think that quite the contrary, a strong identity is required for good mental health. Lack of identity can lead to depersonalisation, anxiety and other such symptoms. In order to withstand the vicissitudes of this world, and the evil that exists, one must have a developed individuality. Indeed, it is the role of society to help one achieve such an individuality - and once this is achieved, it cannot be taken away, it remains the individual's. To make an analogy with a baby, it is alright if the baby is unable to walk without his mother's help at first, but there comes a point when he must stand on his own two feet, independent from the mother.

I don't see individuality as the problem, but the solution. It seems to me that your push towards the collective is the result of fear of the evil of the world. The individual, is at first terribly afraid, and the instinct is to seek to return to his mother's womb, where things were alright, and he had no responsibility. But instead of running away from the evil, I think the option of strengthening the individual so they can withstand the evil of the world, I think that's the right way.

Hmm, but I disagree with your basic premise that identity is fragmentation... and probably so would Peterson. — Agustino

Yes, I know. I won't argue it here, I just wanted to point out that there is a big difference between the half-quote and the whole, and so between what Peterson is saying and myself.

Yes, I know. I won't argue it here, I just wanted to point out that there is a big difference between the half-quote and the whole, and so between what Peterson is saying and myself. — unenlightened

Sir, why are you such a gangster?

I think one of the 'secrets' is that they do not operate alone. The patient is seen in their community, and the therapist also brings their community with them. — unenlightened

How do you think this contributes to better outcomes? How would you imagine this goes in a practical situation? I imagine that people with - say - schizophrenia - who have hallucinations, would be asking about what they should do to deal with those when they have them, etc. What would the therapists say?

This partly explains why there is often a guru-like emphasis on having been trained by the originator of a therapy. And it means it is impossible to separate the GOOD therapist from the BAD in terms of their method, though one knows who is helpful to one's own situation - or does one? — unenlightened

I agree, obviously. The guru aspect is essential, a good therapist is, in essence, a guru. Part of this has to do with subtle features of method that cannot be articulated. For example, I know when my dog makes an "angry", "attack-ready" face, but I cannot tell you what exactly makes me know that that respective face is the "angry", "attack-ready" face - but I do know it. Likewise, the guru cannot convey his method fully - he or she is needed.

I don't have a personal story to relate, in the sense that I have always made myself responsible for my own madness, and so have only been a witness to encounters of others with therapy, the institution and the individuals. — unenlightened

Hmm, so have you suffered from any diagnosable mental disorder then?

Hmm, so have you suffered from any diagnosable mental disorder then? — Agustino

No, no diagnosis, no counselling, no therapy, no psychoactive drugs prescribed. I did manage to get myself thrown off a counselling course, a long time ago, see here, if you want all the sordid details.

I think one of the 'secrets' is that they do not operate alone. The patient is seen in their community, and the therapist also brings their community with them.
— unenlightened
How do you think this contributes to better outcomes? How would you imagine this goes in a practical situation? I imagine that people with - say - schizophrenia - who have hallucinations, would be asking about what they should do to deal with those when they have them, etc. What would the therapists say? — Agustino

I think it is terribly important. It fosters exactly that openness and honesty - we are not talking about you behind your back, you are not being singled out and separated from your family/community before any intervention. We are all together trying to sort out a problem.

I did manage to get myself thrown off a counselling course, a long time ago, see here, if you want all the sordid details. — unenlightened

And your username and password Sir? >:O

The link you provided seems to be to the equivalent of your content management system, not to your blog, and it requests login details.

I think it is terribly important. It fosters exactly that openness and honesty - we are not talking about you behind your back, you are not being singled out and separated from your family/community before any intervention. We are all together trying to sort out a problem. — unenlightened

Okay, right. Well, I agree that that is important, however, that is just the beginning - by itself it doesn't solve any problems. That just gets the patient to be open and willing to collaborate with the therapist, and not think that the therapist is going to do something harmful to them, or that they don't agree with. That is indeed really important, but it's just the beginning. It doesn't actually address how to deal with hallucinations when the patient has them for example.