Well, I have dual-citizenship with Poland, which is part of the EU and thus what would remain is to apply for residency in another EU nation to become a member. Something like that last I rationalized through the process.

Jesus. Y'all need Jesus in yer lives.

If you assume that wavefunction is real and that it occupies an infinite manifold Hilbert space, then in some sense QM becomes or at least seems to become quite metaphysical. I've often resented the fact that philosophy is barred or seen as detrimental to talk about QM. Perhaps Platonists could have better luck at making sense of QM rather than philosophers. However, I doubt restricting the domain of an all encompassing theory like QM makes any sense to physics only.

Whereof one cannot speak thereof one ought to reamin silent.

I'm almost saying that individuality is madness... — unenlightened

Yes, I can't help but feel that as being true in light of intersubjective therapy.

Yeah, and I dismissed them all out of hand when my sister came to stay with me. — Wosret

That seems pretty reckless, don't you think?

That ultimately doesn't matter to the logic of your suggestion without the entailment that low self-esteem is causal. — Wosret

Well, all people have to go about are the symptoms, that's just how the shit works in psychology and psychiatry. If self-esteem is a core issue for people with schizophrenia, psychosis, and major depression, then I think it's worth investing resources in trying to quell all the negative thoughts about having the label of each or in combination; 'schizophrenia, psychosis, and major depression' that are put down on you by a psychiatrist. One them becomes the diagnosis.

Then, how may I ask one treats schizophrenia and psychosis? And what does that even mean, 'to treat it'?

Why have you become senseless critical? — Wosret

Well, if you want to think about this logically, then let's assume that the goal of every therapy is to increase self-esteem, something that is notoriously low in people with schizophrenia, psychotics, and major depression, barring some bipolar mania. Then, the efficacy of said therapy can only be increased by including the ones closest to you in an open dialogue therapy? Don't you think?

Anyway, I'm deviating, I think.

I'm highly skeptical of the idea that it call comes down to self-esteem anyway. It probably does if the goal is just to feel good all the time. My though, is to be healthy, and right. — Wosret

Is that a truism?

Need others in order to send you sanity, and socializing feedback. Isn't that the very suggestion of open dialogue? That sanity arises out of intersubjectivity, and erodes in isolation? — Wosret

Perhaps, we need someone to chime in from the Finnish experiment, but I would assume that the unmentioned, all important, factor in any form of recovery or therapy is for the patient to love and accept themselves before they can acknowledge any sort of positive feelings. I would go as far and say that this is the end goal of Open Dialogue. Fostering a sense of self-acceptance at the very least, through intersubjectivity. There can be no dialogue where there is no subject or an unresponsive, cold, close minded, dogmatic, and insensitive subject at least.

I think we're talking about two different things. On the one hand, there's the self-serving asshole, and on the other, there's the good Samaratin that needs no praise or feelings of resentment to do good, who is filled with self-love.

Different things, no?

I meant to say that it is of utmost importance to be in agreement with those around you about what you aren't, and are not entitled to. — Wosret

What do you mean about, 'what you aren't'? That seems to be like wanting to prove a negative like 'Unicorns don't exist', quite futile.

Edit: And, if we attempt to try and prove a negative, then we need to know all about what we are in the first place.

But, anyway. If the results from this study are valid, then self-worth does not originate from the amount of 'worth' you produce. Ultimately, it seems to be about self-love in my opinion.

Well, I don't mean to insult your Protestant worth ethic; but, yes the latter, although the former wasn't all that clear.

Ultimately, that's a solipsistic philosophy of mind, don't you think?

Well, by your logic, do you live as if you were entitled? I mean as long as you're not spending 100k on a diamond crusted car or golden watch, then I think you're fine. O:)

Safety? Comfort? Lack of negative stigmatizing judgement? Sounds awful. — Wosret

These are the worries that run about in a schizophrenic mind. To think that you are fundamentally flawed, as many schizophrenics think about themselves is a label that's hard to get rid of yourself. Once some understanding or therapy takes place, or even meds for those that need them, then recovery can take place.

I should also mention that places like this forum and the old PF, have given me a sense of stability. Listening to what a fictional Marcus Aurelius would say in my mind also helped. Philosophy itself is a dialectical art that began with the dialogues of Plato and Socrates, and if you take a harder reading, then all philosophy is a sort of dialectical art according to Hegel.

So, philosophy has been also a safety net for me, that has helped me stay afloat in times of distress. Keeping my thoughts in check, which I think many people feel that sense of relief for overactive or sensitive minds, to engage in philosophy and be entertained endlessly. I plan to become a subscriber once I can financially.

I used to try and medicate and alleviate my boredom myself. I'd take a bunch of research chemicals online and try my best to solve my issues myself. Nothing good came from that despite being a decently functioning individual myself. Now, I'm waiting for my first welfare check and trying to figure out what to do with my life. The figuring out phase is kind of over and I intend to go to back to college while on disability, which thankfully is possible here in the states. I didn't know I could go to college AND be on disability at the same time, but that combination of affairs is really relieving, as I don't have to live as if on early retirement on a measly monthly pension is now out of the doors. I have some future to look forward to, which brings me back to Open Dialogue.

It seems to me that half of the battle is due to social circumstances. In places like Finland where welfare isn't stigmatized, people are allowed to freely live on some form of disability and go through the necessary therapy and other life lessons, like not taking drugs and adhering to what's good for you instead of what you think is good for you. Here in the states, the welfare isn't as great as in some Scandinavian countries, but the quality of therapy is quite high, so that makes up somewhat for the difference. My mother, who now understands my situation, doesn't treat me as someone who should be the bread winner, and instead views me affectionately as a person with a problem who is in the process of trying to get better, which helps tremendously with how I view myself also due to the fact that I live with my mom. Things are getting better than worse, and that's important to know. People are predominantly unaware of their circumstances in life and knowing your place in the grand scheme of things is a relief. Getting better isn't anymore defined in terms of how well I feel (say due to how much I make or what drugs I want to take) but instead obtains an objective sense once engaged in dialectical therapy or therapy in general. So, yeah. I'm not complaining. Only times, I feel bad is when I have cravings and urges for the feel better drugs, like Ritalin or Adderall. Pot helps as a stopgap measure, also. But, I try to limit that. I haven't had a psychosis in a while, so that's a benefit, as psychosis kind of retards psychological development.

So, all in all, I'm happy there's a social safety net that grabbed me, and I feel safe in my environment. Things, which I am grateful for and combined with the fact that I desire some positive change in terms of educating myself and building up my human capital, well then I have no complaints.

I didn't make it about me... I was clearly discussing only what I understood to be the topic, although my first post was indeed a passing comment about me, and then I was asked to engage the topic, which I did without talking about myself. — Wosret

It is just that the whole purpose of this therapy is to not get the individual to conform to their diagnosis, accept the meds, and live on disability, speaking as a paranoid schizophrenic myself who is doing all three. Changing the mindset of your closest ones (family) about your diagnosis and what that means can lead to greater outcomes in therapy in terms of living a more fulfilling life.

I have even be motivated to argue with you, but I'm not particularly invested in any positions of this subject. — Wosret

Why does this topic have to be about 'me'?

The rollout will probably not come from the top down. Hope private practices are able to roll it out within a reasonable price.

I regard the idea is not so much anti-psychiatry as taking a step back to ask what the context is. — mcdoodle

Then by definition, this would be anti-psychiatry. This is because (due to the economics of the situation and the prevailing idea and mainstream thoughts in psychiatry) psychiatry can't address the context and only considers the resultant behavior or symptoms arising in the individual.

What I think may be more enlightening is considering why do people choose psychiatry over psychological therapy?

No, I'm not. I'm reporting with references that other people have studied what is being done in Finland, and have found that it has far better results than conventional interventions. Now if you want to call this arrant nonsense, and be taken at all seriously, you had better put forth something at least as substantial by way of evidence and argument, because authoritarian fulmination alone cuts very little ice round here. — unenlightened

This brings me back to the pragmatics of said therapy device. There's little hope that despite how effective this therapy might seem, it will never take any hold in countries where the mainstream narrative or course of action is to refer a schizophrenic or bipolar to the psychiatrist and prescribe the pills. I lament over this status quo.

Quite frankly, many therapists hereabouts and psychiatrists would call this homeopathy. Sadly enough.

The truth has been spoken.

I'm considering starting a new topic, but I'll let it stew in here.

Isn't this therapy essentially against psychiatry? Everything psychiatry is built on is rejected in this form of therapy. There is a divide between psychiatry and psychology that seems to be brought out hereabouts. Is anyone else seeing it?

What's interesting is that this therapy seems like as if a response to the current therapist patient therapy relation, which I think unenlightened points towards.

The patient comes in an tells the therapist that I have a disorder.

Therapist replies, 'says who?'

Open dialogues has been systematically studied in Western Lapland with first
episode psychotic patients (Seikkula et al., 2006; Seikkula et al., 2011; Aaltonen et
al., 2011). These studies have shown favourable outcomes in psychosis. At 5-year
follow-up 85 % of patients did not have any remaining psychotic symptoms and
85% had returned to full employment. Only one third used antipsychotic medication.
There is also some evidence that in Western Lapland the incidence of schizophrenia
has declined during the 25 years of the open dialogue practice.

Ok, so this seems to have answered my previous questions. That's quite profound and I now see the merit to acknowledging said therapy technique in real world practice.

In open dialogue meetings the focus is strengthening the adult side of the
patient and normalising the situation instead of focusing on regressive behavior
(Alanen et al., 1991). The starting point for treatment is the language of the family
in describing the patient’s problem. Problems are seen as socially constructed and
are reformulated in every conversation (Bakhtin, 1984; Gergen, 2009; Shotter,
1993; Shotter & Lannamann, 2002). All persons present are encouraged to speak in
their own unique voice

So, this seems, according to the paper, to resolve not only the individual conflicts of the patient (as pigeonholing the patient into their diagnosis seems to be a common trend in pharmacological based therapy). So, therapy extends from the dialectical patient therapist setting to a broader category.

Before this flies out of my mind, I was wondering about this open dialogue therapy and restoring patient functionality in the workplace and society. Does this only mean that the family now understands the disability and are working to accommodate the patient with their new situation or just simply ignores that? I'm asking because it could simply mean that the end-measure or success of said therapy could be considered different in the case of Western psychology and psychiatry than in Finland where the studies were conducted.

So, are you, in saying this, the patient? — unenlightened

I would say so, yes although I am trying to be pragmatic here. As a patient who actively receives medical care, I've been taught that my condition can be ameliorated with medicine. The fact that we don't hold patients nowadays in institutions is a testament to the effectiveness of drug based psychotherapy. And, I firmly believe that medication for BPD or schizophrenia are effective strategies.

What I'm trying to bring out is your preference to not treat patients with drugs and instead use the mentioned techniques to deal with the disorder. That seems to be a personal motivating factor in light of some disdain or resentment at drugs not being effective enough on your part, as I see it.

Instead, I would like to advocate more talk therapy in combination with drugs to increase the effectiveness of therapy. I don't think big pharma, as much as they love the current status quo (in the West), or medical professionals would want to abandon the effective drugs in therapy seeking and treatment.

But this is not me treating anyone for anything, but trying to learn philosophically, from this therapeutic practice that has been reported. — unenlightened

I have no issues with that, it just seems beyond the capacity for a country like the UK or United States to implement. I could be wrong, and hopefully am.

Trump won't resign. He could be prosecuted then. — creativesoul

Hah, serves him right!

This is beginning to make Watergate look like a petty crime... — creativesoul

Oh, if we had the tapes that were available under Watergate, this whole thing would be over in no time. At least Mueller is doing a tedious job. Just hope Trump doesn't resign before then.

So the restraint of the therapists is the vital factor; not to impose a theory, a diagnosis, a course of treatment, but to allow the opening of negotiations, perhaps for the very first time. — unenlightened

Yet, the theory is the foundation upon which the therapist stands in relation to the patient. I've never head of psychosis without BPD or SZ, and bipolar disorder or schizophrenia are quite devastating diseases that need to be treated with something more than talk therapy. Perhaps, I am wrong, but a therapist cannot give you a plane ticket to the Scandinavian countries, where welfare for the people with disorders or diseases is quite well handled. Meaning that socially, the conditions are well acknowledged and therapy can be more effective.

Things are getting more and more interesting.

The only issue I can see here is that of the American doctor telling a patient that they have a defect that some drug can address, based on some neurological understanding of the etymology of a disease and the stark contrast with the doctors in the film to soothe and calm the patient into accepting and understanding their condition.

In simpler terms you have the American patient wondering if the pills are working yet, and the unimaginable contrast with patients who don't need the pills at all and don't need to be put in psychiatric institutions. Two entirely different frames of reference.

Though, I don't see what's wrong with prescribing the pills and engaging in more dialectical therapy, do you?

Typical Zizek. I liked the part where he said American's can't control themselves, it's the unknown knowns driving decision making.

Zizek does an interesting analysis of this in one of his several million online vids. And I thought we discussed it here or on old PF before. — Baden

Send a link if you can. Zizek has a knack for turning everything to some sexual impetus. I may as well have started that thread. I tend to bring up such obscure saying and when an analysis is applied, they get even muddier.

I was quoting almost verbatim what Rummy said in one of his memo's or more explicitly in a documentary he starred in called 'The Unknown Known' (2013). It was worth a watch. I saw Fog Of War, also, but Rummy takes the cake, a true believer in the cause, unlike unbiased and cool McNamara in the Fog Of War.

There is also one last case, which I think resolves the issue.

An unknown known is something that you thought you knew was the case but was not in reality.

Will work if X is everything we know. — szardosszemagad

X can be a proposition or statement of any sort.

So X has to be the complete sum of all knowledge by a human or by a unit. — szardosszemagad

X can also be an existential quantifier or again a statement of any sort.

What is not X then becomes not only a known unknown, but an unkown unknown. — szardosszemagad

Well, it can be some causal factor that we don't understand. Take a scientific fact for example. We know the conditions that make it true, but there could arise conditions that challenge our understanding of said phenomena, then we have a known unknown to deal with.

Therefore I must say that 2 does not exist; it's either known knowns, or unknown unknowns. This is the end point of the reasoning. — szardosszemagad

See the previous paragraph.

So according to your essay, the test proves that "known unknowns" are in fact not in existence; and reality is such, that unknown unknowns are not known. — szardosszemagad

Then we have no way of expanding our knowledge in that case or rather the conditions you limit epistemic knowledge would only be hard truths like 2 + 2 is 4.