<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Tbertruss@aol.com
href="mailto:Tbertruss@aol.com">Tbertruss@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=joanopyr@earthlink.net
href="mailto:joanopyr@earthlink.net">joanopyr@earthlink.net</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 05, 2005 1:18
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Vision2020] The Politics of
Experience (definition ofschizophrenia)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=arial,helvetica><FONT lang=0 face=Arial size=2
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"><BR>Joan et. al.<BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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:<BR><BR>"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."<BR><BR>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?<BR><BR>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. <BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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?<BR><BR>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?<BR><BR>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?<BR><BR>"The Politics of Experience" by R. D. Laing explores some of
these issues:<BR><BR><A
href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/039471475X/103-2193648-8375043?v=glance">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/039471475X/103-2193648-8375043?v=glance</A><BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>Ted Moffett<BR><BR><BR></FONT>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_____________________________________________________<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BODY></HTML>