[Vision2020] The Politics of Experience (definition ofschizophrenia)

Thu May 5 16:43:09 PDT 2005

And so it goes!! Another argument from someone who does not work with the mentally ill. BUT, he knows how it should be treated and handled...well, Of course he does! But if it was his loved one standing out on a street corner every night not being treated for their illness he might see the other side of the story. I can tell you that IF Van Gogh's paintings were not a part of the art world today but he had lived a safe life then who knows what the world would be. He just might have done more wonderful things and better things. 

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tbertruss at aol.com 
  To: joanopyr at earthlink.net ; vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 1:18 PM
  Subject: [Vision2020] The Politics of Experience (definition ofschizophrenia)

  Joan et. al.

  Part of the reason for posting those definitions of "schizophrenia" was to suggest the word does not carry enough precision and clarity to be used as medical terminology to scientifically describe a "mental" illness.  Consider the fact that there is offered distinct and differing definitions of schizophrenia, a state of affairs that would be laughable in the model science of physics: we do not see the American and European definitions of Einstein's Special Relativity.  Any such development would be regarded as infecting unacceptable scientific uncertainty to a level that could jeopardize the consistency and validity of the theory.  

  Of course modern psychiatry is stuck in the epistemological quandary between organic and mental pathology: what is the difference between the two (here the mind/body problem in philosophy impacts science and the medical profession in profound ways), and is mental reducible to organic?  Or is it possible that at a certain level of organization in a neuronal and chemical based brain that emergent qualities result (Mind?) that cannot be explained as a sum of the parts?  Some neuroscientists assume that we can mostly reduce mental functioning to the biochemistry and connections in the brain.  If so, then "mental" illness disappears to be replaced with organic brain malfunctions. 

  Furthermore, how do we differentiate between shifting cultural norms of what is considered "normal" behavior regarding what behaviors are to be viewed as symptoms of mental illness and what are not?  This later problem appears especially difficult when trying to place spiritual experiences into the context of what we describe as mental illness.  Indeed, the excerpt you posted from the so called "European" definition of schizophrenia, touches on this problem:

  "The most intimate thoughts, feelings, and acts are often felt to be known to or shared by others, and explanatory delusions may develop, to the effect that natural or supernatural forces are at work to influence the afflicted individual's thoughts and actions in ways that are often bizarre. The individual may see himself or herself as the pivot of all that happens."

  If someone believes a God made the Earth and humanity for a grand cosmic drama that hinges on whether or not they follow this God, with those following being saved for all eternity, and those not following being damned for all eternity, with a powerful common bond that is felt by all who share these beliefs, how does this scenario fit into the above definition?

  Please, no one jump on me for being unfair to spiritual ideologies of any kind.  I am merely pointing out that there is a major problem in defining mental illness in a manner that will result in the majority of people exhibiting serious symptoms.  

  I tend to think modern psychiatry is overreaching in what forms of behavior and thought they determine to be "illness."  Irrationality, wild fantasies and behavior, and intense feelings that seem "inappropriate" are part of being human.  To define many of these states of mind, body and behavior as pathology is imposing an objective scientific model, that has no scientific ethical foundation, onto the subjective and value relativistic world of human experience, a world that I think when dominated by the objective model of empirical science, is destructive to our humanity and all the complexity of expression and experience that is part of being human.

  Psychiatry is a very problematic science insofar as it is difficult to separate ethical judgments that science usually brackets off as irrelevant to the objective study of the phenomena being investigated, from the sorts of judgments psychiatry is forced to provide.  In effect, psychiatry is forced to become very unscientific when placing value judgments on what sorts of human experience are considered "pathological" or not.  Physicists do not concern themselves with whether matter is sane or insane.  Psychiatry is forced to operate at the boundary between mind and matter, a boundary that creates very serious problems in theory of knowledge.

  If Vincent Van Gogh had been medicated by the dictates of modern psychiatry, would he have painted the brilliant and marvelous work that he gave to humanity?  Should we medicate extreme states of experience out of existence if it means taking away the pain, despair and conflict which can be the foundation for profound states of mind that lead to great art and spiritual insight?

  Given the power humanity does have, and will have to a much greater degree, to alter our brain chemistry and our genetics influencing the mind, should we aim for a society of "happy" people, where extreme unhappiness and/or "bizarre" behavior will be medicated or genetically modified out of existence?

  And given this immense power over the nature of human subjective experience that modern psychiatry is developing, who will control these tools of managing the mind?  The government, the white coated researchers, the psychiatrists in leather comfort chairs pondering the human condition?  Or should it be your chosen priest, priestess or shaman?

  "The Politics of Experience" by R. D. Laing explores some of these issues:

  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/039471475X/103-2193648-8375043?v=glance

  Of course Aldous Huxley was way ahead of his time when his novel "Brave New World" predicted a future where "unhappiness" was not allowed, with Soma as medication for those who became "unhappy," who did not conform to this engineered and highly regulated society.

  Ted Moffett

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _____________________________________________________
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050505/f6a1a899/attachment-0001.htm