The Bodies

introbert

If the users of this website have already noticed, I have anti-psychiatric ideas. However, being anti-psychiatric does not mean I completely reject medicine, believe in alternative therapies, deny the existence of mental disorder, or other obvious stances someone in an anti-psychiatric position would take. Rather I see it in an abstract sense that is suggested by it's greco-latin origins: 'healing of the soul'. This is not an offensive nomenclature, and sounds quite soothing and pleasant, but it is starkly contrasted by a history of confining, constraining, and trying to control the body. It is not necessarily the pursuit of medicine that is problematic, but it is in a broader 'psychiatry of bodies' or 'healing of the soul of bodies' that is major philosophical issue. There are four main bodies addressed here: the body of codes and knowledge, the bodies of individuals, the body of society, and the planetary body of the Earth.

The first issue is the effect of 'healing the soul' of the body of codes and knowledge. This is a complex area, but the focus of a broader psychiatry on eliminating mental disorder from this body, is potentially a threat to a wide range of thought that is not necessarily of the kind that dominates psychiatric health science. Mainstream psychoanalytic theories were quite bizarre in the 20th century, and I conceptualize the progression away from these as part of an ongoing process of anti-schizophrenia. These were a double-edged sword where the nature of the theories caused unusual treatments, but also had a kind of appeal to the soul/mind of those who contemplated them as knowledge or code. Without going into so much detail, the simple point this paragraph makes about a progressive psychiatry is about how it has healed the soul of codes and knowledge, but at the same time has created a less subjective body that still harms, but is more confident in its objectivity.

The second issue is the effect of 'healing the soul' on the bodies of individuals. My personal fear that arises from looking at types of people, there seems to be a lot less weird philosophical types than there was in the mid-twentieth century. My own experience with living in an increasingly rationalized society, is that a person who is inclined to thinking over practice (work), subjectivism over objectivity, irrationalism over rationalism, disobediance over obedience, critical thought over conformity, individual over communitarian, free over totalitarian and various other things that are easily rationalized, will struggle mentally in an environment where there is prevailing psychiatry that features all of these things. The early sociological theory on 'anomie', which features elements of mental disorder, should be looked at as a starting point for anyone critical of the healing of the soul of the body of the individual, by a communitarian, totalitarian, objective, professional, and obedient social institution of influence.

The third issue is the effect of 'healing the soul' of the body of society. If psychiatry heals the soul of codes and knowledge, the soul of individuals, how else do they heal the soul of the body of society if it consists of these parts? The soul of the body of society can be conceptualized as its history. My belief is that starting in the modern period with Descartes there has been an increasing rationalization of not only social practices, but also of belief, ways of thought, and what we know and remember about this heritage. Without those crazy ways of thought, there is only the prevailing rational understandings of them. Just as orange comes from an ancient Celtic god, but represents the erasure of that history, not that history: rationalization in the modern period has been a pervasive psychiatry that spawned Psychiatry.

The fourth issue is the effect of 'healing the soul' of the planetary body of the Earth. The Earth has suffered in the modern period, with uncivilized, primitive, godless, wild peoples who lived in a harmony with the Earth being subjugated by an emerging rational order that viewed a type of progress of economic, industrial, social, religious, familial, and other institutionalization of people as superior to the Mother that gives life. Psychiatry is in the service of this rational order.

Metaphysician Undercover

↪introbert

How would you deal with goals and intentions under this scheme of "bodies"? A body has a past, and by inertia tends to continue to be as it was, in the past. This is contrary to intentions and goals which seek change. So, from your perspective of "bodies", how do you relate to the desire for change?

For example, look at this quote:

The soul of the body of society can be conceptualized as its history. — introbert

The body can be conceptualized as the history, but the soul does not submit to such a conceptualization. From a conceptualization of the history of society we cannot get an accurate account of its goals. We can make some unsound inferences, but unsound inferences do not give us an adequate understanding of the soul.

Hanover

↪introbert

The problem with everything you say is that it is unscientific and useless from any practical perspective. Step one is to identify the specific measurable problem you have, step two is to arrive at some theoretically reasonable method for resolving it, step three is to implement that method, and step four is to measure your results to determine if you've been able to resolve the problem identified in step one.

And all of this has to be specific and measurable, not generalized and unknowable. You've not identified the specific psychiatric disorder you wish to eliminate, described how it is measured, nor have you arrived at a reasonably understandable theory for how that measured disorder can be reduced, and we are far from having any understanding how a clinical trial could be conducted to test your vague methods.

Your position isn't particularly anti-psychiatrist. It's non-scientific and useless.

This isn't to say that it has no value perhaps as a philosophical musing about what causes spiritual disharmony or something like that, but leading the article off as if it might stand in opposition to evidence based solutions doesn't get this off the ground.

unenlightened

Step one is to identify the specific measurable problem you have, step two is to arrive at some theoretically reasonable method for resolving it, step three is to implement that method, and step four is to measure your results to determine if you've been able to resolve the problem identified in step one. — Hanover

1. This is insane.
2. There can be no objective method for dealing with subjects.
3. The results of personal interactions are immeasurable.
4. The uselessness of this approach is easily measurable by the vast increase in mental illness that so-called scientific psychology has produced by its attempt to objectify social relations between subjects.

If you treat people as objects, you will only learn how to manipulate them; people subjected to manipulation will suffer damage.

Hanover

↪unenlightened

That you can cite to stats showing a vast increase in mental illness indicates you are able to objectively identify mental illness and objectively identify its increase. If that can be done, then my suggestion isn't insane, but it indicates we should try various treatments and see if those stats you rely upon move in a positive direction.

Also, your solution of treating patients subjectively as opposed to objectively doesn't explain in practice how I am supposed to treat someone, but, it you are able to identify these two competing ways of treatment (the subjective versus the objective), they can be tested against each other to test your theory that objective treatment results in the suffering of damage, as to however damage might be defined. And damage does have to be defined for this to make any sense, which I realize will be by self reporting of some sort, which is a subjective presentation of symptoms, which maybe that's what you're referencing by subjective.

Subjective information can be objectively evaluated for changes over time and for resolution of those reported symptoms, so this doesn't take it outside the realm of medical science any more than tests of medications that might resolve headaches or back pain, all of which can only be subjectively measured.

introbert

↪Hanover

Yes, work has to be done. Science comes from ancient industrial way of thinking, and scientific objectivity has worked its way into psychological and social thinking about the 'soul' which has enhanced scientism in these bidies. In the context of the forum and your role of mod I understand you are not only making a countervailing argument in favor of modernity, but also making an appeal to quality which is rational in the context of the maintenance of norms and the demonstrably rational power of scientific thinking. However, I don't personally approve of science outside of industry. To me, understanding the conflict I have with the psychiatry of these bodies is a Socratic examination of life that I can extrapolate to broader social phenomenoa.

Jack Cummins

↪introbert

I am interested in critical thinking about psychiatry and the idea of 'healing the soul'. I have worked as a psychiatric nurse and, before that, I had read in the direction of the antipsychiatry movement. It is a very complex area because it involves politics and the mental wellbeing of individuals. The movement of antipsychiatry, as advocated by Thomas Szaz and RD Laing was rejected many, including both mental health service users and professionals for not looking at the real experience of mental health issues in enough depth.

Having known people who have had various mental health issues, the whole idea of mental health and its healing is important. Part of my own decision to train in mental health nursing was having known people with mental health issues, and knowing people who had committed suicide. There are so many people who are affected by mental health issues in society, its diagnosis and treatment and the various therapeutic options.

Different people find the various treatments and therapeutic options more helpful than others. For some, various medications seem to be helpful and may be complemented by other approaches, including the recovery model of identifying goals. For some, therapeutic interventions may be favoured, including the psychodynamic approaches or cognitive behavioral ones. In some instances, certain interventions may be seen as intrusive and disempowering, which is where the movement of antipsychiatry began.

During training in art psychotherapy, one approach which I came across in a one-day workshop was the transpersonal approach in psychotherapy. This may be a hidden gem, as it focuses on healing of the 'soul' and the idea of transformation. One of the writers includes Thomas More, who looks at care of the soul and the dark night of the soul. The scope of the transpersonal perspective may offer hope to some, but not necessarily all. It draws upon the idea of healing and wholeness and integration from psychology and Eastern thinking. It may be important for thinking in where antipsychiatry ended as a deadend for some, reducing it all to politics whereas some of the originators, including Laing, saw saw psychiatric issues as arising in the existential aspects of suffering and meaning.

introbert

↪Jack Cummins

I believe in rational oppressions. If you think broadly of psychiatry not as the contemporary medical science but as a progression of the history of thought as healing a sick soul, this includes all philosophy and religion that is known. I make quite a few antiorange statements, but I am not fond of the catholic psychiatry either. Both religions played a role in the emergence of modern rationality, but like psychoanalysis carried a rational system that was dual natured, some aspects of the rationality prevail today, but further rationalizations are eroding the content. The religious belief is schizo compared to science, but the social structure and other aspects form the herd mentality of society. There are mentally sick people, but not all have common cause and I am particarly concerned by the possible mistreatment of anomics.

Jack Cummins

↪introbert

I appreciate your points and if anything think that the topic is too large to be simply a debating matter on the forum. Everyone has opinions and so many people have mental health issues. So, if your thread is to be of any quality it needs to embrace diverse ideas and angles. I only wrote a response because I have worked in mental health care, know people with enduring mental health problems and read on the various perspectives of therapy and healing.

It seems that you have a genuine interest but I am not sure that the thread will do the topic any justice, because there are so many aspects and it is a fairly sensitive topic, especially for internet discussion because it encompasses the political, the personal and psychological. If anything, it may have been better broken down into several questions and I may even write a question or two myself as a thread, but not today because I am extremely stressed out by my own life circumstances of moving. I do hope that your thread generates some worthwhile discussion though.

BC

there seems to be a lot less weird philosophical types than there was in the mid-twentieth century — introbert

I'd be very surprised if there were fewer weird philosophical (or any other weird) types around now than there were mid-twentieth century. And is that a good thing or a bad thing, from your perspective? I'm sorry if my efforts at weirdness have not been altogether convincing,

My own experience with living in an increasingly rationalized society, is that a person who is inclined to thinking over practice (work), subjectivism over objectivity, irrationalism over rationalism, disobediance over obedience, critical thought over conformity, individual over communitarian, free over totalitarian and various other things that are easily rationalized, will struggle mentally in an environment where there is prevailing psychiatry that features all of these things. — introbert

Of course. Anyone who pursues a full-court press of subjectivism, irrationalism, disobedience, nonconformism, individualism, and various other things is going to run into strong resistance because this approach will either strongly resemble--or will in effect be --antisocial. This person is going to be a voice howling in the wilderness. Pariah or prophet?

BTW, why do you place critical thinking in opposition to conformity? Do you suppose that only rebels employ critical thinking? Conformists do too,

Humans employ moderate amounts of rationality and irrationality or obedience and disobedienc--some of each in all the paired terms you employ.

The early sociological theory on 'anomie', which features elements of mental disorder, should be looked at as a starting point for anyone critical of the healing of the soul of the body of the individual, by a communitarian, totalitarian, objective, professional, and obedient social institution of influence. — introbert

Anomie: In sociology, anomie is a social condition defined by an uprooting or breakdown of any moral values, standards or guidance for individuals to follow. Anomie is believed to possibly evolve from conflict of belief systems and causes breakdown of social bonds between an individual and the community...

Are you for or against anomie? Can't tell from what you said.

People employ all sorts of policing to manage society besides formal police and agents with policing authority like psychiatrists. Some of it is formal, and a lot of it is informal. Sharp eyed old ladies in apartment buildings, for instance.

Sometimes we rub up against too many abrasive social surfaces and become raw and irritated all over. Then it is time to withdraw to one's room to sooth the sores and develop a little thicker skin. I spend a lot of time by myself. It helps.

introbert

↪BC

I am anomic, but I am not for or against it. I would prefer that the rational order of society was more critical, so that a person who is critical does not become more distant. Absurdism, nihilism, existentialism, postmodernism and critical theory are anomic and appeal to anomics. I like these philosophies, but I would prefer individual, subjective and critical consciousness pervaded all society so that anomie doesnt cause alienation, distress and risky, selfdestructive and aggressive behavior.

BC

↪introbert

Sorry to hear that you are anomic; it's probably not a great place to be.

Absurdism, nihilism, existentialism, postmodernism and critical theory are anomic and appeal to anomics. — introbert

From my perspective, anomie isn't something one would opt for; rather, it is something that happens to an individual and to groups of people. Once there is a "breakdown of social bonds between an individual and the community", then I suppose nihilism and absurdism, postmodernism, and so on would settle in.

One is where one is, and if it's in anomie, then that's that, at least for the time being.

How old are you? I'm way over the hill myself, and it seems like anomie is more likely to be a condition of younger people (like 20s, 30s). Bug or feature? It seems like anomie is less a 'bug' of younger people and more a 'feature'. When I was in my 20s, 30s, I found the kind of stuff that you are talking about much more attractive. It isn't a sign of 'immaturity'; it's more like having 'not that much to lose'. As people get older, they have more to lose. I'm not thinking of property here; their social connections and commitments weigh more.

introbert

↪BC

Anomie is the wrong kind of word to use actually. It is a functionalist theory tends to conceptualize things as problematic, so that the problem has a natural function of increasing solidarity, cohesion, unity, and integration etc. of those that become social types to address the problem. Anomie as a concept is actually destructive to the state of being critical or nihilistic etc. as it problematizes the experience and makes a social type who is the complete opposite.

Moliere

↪introbert

Am I right to say that you believe "anomie" is a word which turns a person from a critical observer to a person who needs a cure?

introbert

↪Moliere

Yes, the concept of anomie is meant to address social problems.

BC

to a person who needs a cure? — Moliere

More like a society that needs a cure.

unenlightened

a word which turns a person from a critical observer to a person who needs a cure? — Moliere

Sounds like a magic spell. The sort of delegitimising incantation a psychiatrist uses by way of dehumanising his clients into patients. Your thoughts are sick, and the cure can only begin with your acquiescence . And low, the prince is turned into a frog. Personally, I'm a sceptic, so I always kiss every frog I meet, just in case.

Moliere

↪unenlightened

Right! (And aren't these speeches, in fact, somewhat magical? Pronounced man and wife, and with a kiss, a social bond is started)

I think there's something to this -- there is this move that exists whereby a person is rendered no longer able. It's not that such cases of helplessness don't exist, it's more that they are attributed to delegitimatize and disable rather than identify in order to enable (and, frequently, there's nothing to identify -- the delegitimization is the point). Where once we had a person, now we have baptized them into a schizophrenic: trust the doctor's word over your own feelings.

Hell, my first talk therapist was like that. Annoying as all get out.

But my second one was good. And it was nothing like this. It was an actual relationship between us through which we'd talk through emotions. Much more my way of doing things: shared responsibility, patient-directed, that sort of thing.

But the sort of measurements that count in the second version are things like self-report: rather than silencing a person into a patient, it's an approach which retains autonomy of the person who needs some help (rather than a patient who needs a cure, no matter what they say)

unenlightened

Where once we had a person, now we have baptized them into a schizophrenic: trust the doctor's word over your own feelings. — Moliere

What is interesting is that this is scientific magic. The psychiatrist actually believes his own magic. With marriage, at least civil marriage, we all understand the formal, contractual nature of the event But for the psychiatrist the name is the disease and the disease is real. The better comparison though would be excommunication.

Moliere

↪unenlightened

True. To be insane in this culture is to be excommunicated not from a personal religion, but from the civic religion -- one is considered unfit for some public function or other.

The Bodies

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions