Creative writing and artful observations

[Syne]

No, it's literally self-serving to quote the leading figure of an anti-psychiatry movement about mental illness being rational when you have mental illness.
It's not like psychiatry largely agrees with Laing, which makes you singling him out as self-serving cherry-picking.

Laing's view is not accepted by the vast majority of modern psychiatrists. Modern psychiatry overwhelmingly treats "insanity"—historically used to describe severe conditions like schizophrenia or psychosis—as a complex neurobiological disorder, not a rational choice or social adjustment.
- gemini

Psychiatry rejected his views that mental illnesses were metaphorical protests and that you should blame the environment and families struggling to support the mentally ill.

Whether religion is "the opium of the people" depends entirely on how you view its role in society.

Modern sociology shows a much more complex picture, proving that religion isn't always a passive "opiate" that makes people complacent.

Shaping Ideology: Sociological research, such as studies published in the journal Social Forces on religion in the United States, reveals that religion actually shapes and drives political and social engagement rather than just suppressing it.

Motivation for Change: Throughout history, religious beliefs have actively fueled reform, social justice movements, and civil rights, serving as an engine for progressive action rather than just a sedative.
- gemini

So just as self-serving on that point too. 9_9

[Magical Realist]

No, it's literally self-serving to quote the leading figure of an anti-psychiatry movement about mental illness being rational when you have mental illness.

I can quote anyone whose quote I agree with, regardless of who they are or how they believed. That's because of the truth value independence of propositions. And what he said makes perfect sense, as I already showed in a previous post. Of course this is your typical ploy when backed into a corner--to hide behind LLM search results instead of thinking for yourself. The original discussion was I believe you insulting me as insane and me asking you to define it, which you couldn't do. So let's try this: what makes you calling me insane a true statement? Be specific now.

[Syne]

You absolutely can do all the self-serving cherry-picking you like. What you can't get away with is claiming your self-serving cherry-picking is inherently true, when it's largely rejected by psychiatry. I'm sure it makes sense to you... you're mentally ill and you've admitted it many times. You calling facts you can't refute "hiding" is just your latest transparent cop-out to conveniently avoid them entirely... like you've always done with many parts of posts anyway. Nothing new but the excuse.

I already defined insanity. Can't help it if you don't comprehend simple English. 9_9
I'm not the one here claiming to make a "true statement." That's... again... you're own strawman. Argue it with the voices in your head.

[Magical Realist]

As a philosopher and well-read in Foucault's theories on the invention of madness and insanity as a control system of power structures, I question the whole concept of insanity and certainly the idea that my hearing voices constitutes its sole criteria for diagnosis. Even as a once-used medical term like "madness", it is not really even used anymore to describe patients because it signifies nothing meaningful and is almost always used as a pejorative label.

‘In the Western imagination, reason has long belonged to terra firma. Island or continent, it repels water with a solid stubbornness: it only concedes its sand. As for unreason, it has been aquatic from the depths of time and that until fairly recently. And more precisely oceanic: infinite space, uncertain … Madness is the flowing liquid exterior of rocky reason.’---Michel Foucault

I've already shown how voice-hearing is a widespread phenomena occurring all over the world in normal functioning people and even in many famous historical figures. Start here to educate yourself:

https://www.intervoiceonline.org/about-u...nt#content

The real question here, if we are even going down this road, is who REALLY is the more psychologically sound one: the one who innocently posts an experience he had with his voices, or the one who seizes on that as an opportunity to demean and belittle that person for whatever sadistic pleasure it gives them? I think we all know the answer.

---

It seems self-evident to me that if there were ever any such thing in this universe as "knowing something", it would only be in the form of knowing itself. How could a rock or a tree or a star or indeed even a human being know anything that exists or occurs beyond itself? Does knowledge of the world just sort of float around in the air waiting for us to snatch it? Not at all. Not unless we are clairovoyant.

And yet with consciousness we seem to have the precise opposite---of a manner of knowing things that are beyond one's body that seem to be occurring in the blank space of our nonconsciousness of ourselves. Always and everywhere we seem perfectly and instantaneously informed about the world around us, but only thru and by means of the transparent spot of NOT being the world around us. We are a self-illumined empty space--a screen-- for things to appear and to exist and have presence thru. To even just come close to being conscious we also exist as bodies, we again have to cease to exist so we can phenomenally appear out of thin air as HERE and NOW. The screen iow would have to manifest itself as entirely blank to reveal its own presence to us! Consciousness then as the negative of or lack of being--- as the empty void that gives Being room to be as other than us and power to manifest to us, but precisely by being only an unmediated and hyperspatial state of absolute nothingness.

[Magical Realist]

To contain and permeate all possible forms of being down to their essences, the Mind must be something more fundamental and more primal and more encompassing than Being itself. Which is to say that it is itself the substrate as well as the very medium for all being and happening. Exactly as SpaceTime is for physical matter and all events. It's the only way we can make sense of the basic mathematical and geometrical order underlying the entire universe. IOW, the ideational precedes and structures the physical. Plato was basically right.

[Syne]

As a philosopher and well-read in Foucault's theories on the invention of madness and insanity as a control system of power structures, I question the whole concept of insanity and certainly the idea that my hearing voices constitutes its sole criteria for diagnosis.

Of course you do. You've spent a lot of time justifying your mental illness to yourself.
The voices are not the only diagnostic criteria here. There's also severe depression, and the need for medication, even for the voices.

My 3 voices only speak when I actively engage with them and talk to them.... I take a medication to keep them from becoming more aggressive.

I take an antipsychotic called Geodon that is meant for bipolars and schizophrenics and I feel great! I take it for depression.

The meds for the voices alone mean they are otherwise distressing, which is a criteria of mental illness.
Philosophers are not trained in psychology/psychiatry. That would be ultracrepidarianism.

Even as a once-used medical term like "madness", it is not really even used anymore to describe patients because it signifies nothing meaningful and is almost always used as a pejorative label.

You're arguing a strawman again. I never said it was a psychological/psychiatric term.
Insanity is a legal term, but seeing as we're not in court, there's a third option... given in my original definition... that would apply.
I wonder if you're capable of figuring that out for yourself.... even when I've eliminated all other options.

I've already shown how voice-hearing is a widespread phenomena occurring all over the world in normal functioning people and even in many famous historical figures. Start here to educate yourself:

https://www.intervoiceonline.org/about-u...nt#content

Lots of people trying to justify/normalize their mental illness doesn't make it not so.

The real question here, if we are even going down this road, is who REALLY is the more psychologically sound one: the one who innocently posts an experience he had with his voices, or the one who seizes on that as an opportunity to demean and belittle that person for whatever sadistic pleasure it gives them? I think we all know the answer.

I'm going to go with the one who doth protest way too much.
Go ahead, try to call me insane. You won't find me justifying, defending, making excuses, etc., because I have no doubts in my mental fitness.
Your moralizing is just more, sad defensiveness.

[Magical Realist]

The meds for the voices alone mean they are otherwise distressing, which is a criteria of mental illness. Philosophers are not trained in psychology/psychiatry. That would be ultracrepidarianism.

LOL you had to dig up posts from 6-7 years ago just to continue your attack on me? I have long since stopped taking any meds for voices and peacefully accepted them as part of who I am. That would be the very opposite of being insane.

You're arguing a strawman again. I never said it was a psychological/psychiatric term.
Insanity is a legal term, but seeing as we're not in court, there's a third option... given in my original definition... that would apply.
I wonder if you're capable of figuring that out for yourself.... even when I've eliminated all other options.

Ok..so now I'm not psychologically insane, just legally insane? How is then that I'm not committed nor showing any symptoms of this generic made up disorder of yours?

Lots of people trying to justify/normalize their mental illness doesn't make it not so.

Others try to stigmatize and demoralize people as "insane" because it somehow gives them a hard-on to denigrate people. Do you really think that is justifiable/normal human behavior?

Go ahead, try to call me insane. You won't find me justifying, defending, making excuses, etc., because I have no doubts in my mental fitness.
Your moralizing is just more, sad defensiveness.

Number one symptom of mental illness ---denial that you are mentally ill. My mother would never admit her illness to herself even though we all could see the symptoms. The same applies to you.

[Syne]

The meds for the voices alone mean they are otherwise distressing, which is a criteria of mental illness. Philosophers are not trained in psychology/psychiatry. That would be ultracrepidarianism.

LOL you had to dig up posts from 6-7 years ago just to continue your attack on me? I have long since stopped taking any meds for voices and peacefully accepted them as part of who I am. That would be the very opposite of being insane.

It's actually not, but go ahead.

You're arguing a strawman again. I never said it was a psychological/psychiatric term.
Insanity is a legal term, but seeing as we're not in court, there's a third option... given in my original definition... that would apply.
I wonder if you're capable of figuring that out for yourself.... even when I've eliminated all other options.

Ok..so now I'm not psychologically insane, just legally insane? How is then that I'm not committed nor showing any symptoms of this generic made up disorder of yours?

No, I literally just said "we're not in court," so the legal definition obviously wouldn't apply... hence the "third option."
I knew you either couldn't be bothered to go reread the definition I originally gave you, or.... much more likely.... couldn't comprehend what you read (considering you couldn't even comprehend this simple point).

Lots of people trying to justify/normalize their mental illness doesn't make it not so.

Others try to stigmatize and demoralize people as "insane" because it somehow gives them a hard-on to denigrate people. Do you really think that is justifiable/normal human behavior?

See, you think denigrating people might give someone a hard-on because it does for you. I wouldn't even think of such an accusation because I wouldn't even imagine it being a thing. Evil people always tell on themselves by coming up with things good people never would.

Normal is heaping crap on crappy people who deserve it... like you, buddy.

Go ahead, try to call me insane. You won't find me justifying, defending, making excuses, etc., because I have no doubts in my mental fitness.
Your moralizing is just more, sad defensiveness.

Number one symptom of mental illness ---denial that you are mentally ill.

Like you're repeatedly doing in this very thread? @_@
Tu quoque fallacy ain't flying here.

My mother would never admit her illness to herself even though we all could see the symptoms. The same applies to you.

That's odd. In all your years of insults, ad hominem, and character assassination, where have you ever suggested diagnosable mental illness?
Either you haven't, even though you "all could see the symptoms," or it proves my point of how little I cared.

But please, show me where you have. I'd like to see my own reaction... or lack thereof.

[Magical Realist]

No, I literally just said "we're not in court," so the legal definition obviously wouldn't apply... hence the "third option."

I see. So I'm only "insane" in some third, generic, pejorative and entirely subjectively-determined sense that only you can discern. Thanks for completely refuting your own claim.

Normal is heaping crap on crappy people who deserve it... like you, buddy.

No..normal human beings don't heap crap on anyone who is just posting a very personal and amazing experience in their own creative writings threads. There's definitely something very twisted in your constant campaign to slur and shit on me for no reason in this public forum. But I'm not interested enough in you to analyze it. lol

That's odd. In all your years of insults, ad hominem, and character assassination, where have you ever suggested diagnosable mental illness?
Either you haven't, even though you "all could see the symptoms," or it proves my point of how little I cared.

Like I said, I don't have enough interest in you as a person to even try to diagnose you. I only note your continuous fixation for attacking me out of the blue for no reason and the obvious sadistic/autoerotic thrill such an addictive action gives you. Take it or leave it. I couldn't care less.

[Syne]

No, I literally just said "we're not in court," so the legal definition obviously wouldn't apply... hence the "third option."

I see. So I'm only insane in some third nebulous, pejorative and entirely subjectively determined sense that only you can discern. Thanks for completely refuting your own claim.

My original definition is still there, any time you want to go read it again. Nothing nebulous except your dubious reading comprehension.
Wait, did you already reread it and STILL not understand? LOL!

Normal is heaping crap on crappy people who deserve it... like you, buddy.

No..normal human beings don't heap crap on anyone who is just posting a very personal and amazing experience in their own creative writings threads. There's definitely something very twisted in your constant campaign to slur and shit on me for no reason in this public forum. But I'm not interested enough in you to analyze it. lol

See, you have to ignore years of your postings to arrive at that victimhood narrative in your head.

That's odd. In all your years of insults, ad hominem, and character assassination, where have you ever suggested diagnosable mental illness?
Either you haven't, even though you "all could see the symptoms," or it proves my point of how little I cared.

Like I said, I don't have enough interest in you as a person to even try to diagnose you. I only note your continuous fixation for attacking me out of the blue for no reason and the obvious sadistic thrill such an addiction gives you. Take it or leave it. I couldn't care less.

So you were just lying, again. Got it!