PDA

View Full Version : Please help.



Jaie Miller
01-10-2007, 04:46 PM
I'm 20 years old and I live in London. I feel like I'm slowly going insane. I cannot maintain rational thought. I am easily aggitated and my energy is becoming disruptive. I find it hard to be at peace for long periods of time. My thought flow is often interrupted. I find it difficult to differentiate between what is real and un-real. I am trying to remain calm and focused. I often get woken up at random times and feel an urge to be active. I find it difficult to exist in a space without being intruded upon. I am very dis tractable. I've been medicated for the past 2.5 years. I don't want to be locked away. I feel like I have to do things-like run or skip. I hear voices. I think I've been poisoned. I feel like people are coming after me. I like music. I feel lost. I feel ugly_my thoughts are ugly_ Words resonate with me_ I pick up on sounds and emotions_that are not mine. I feel like a caged monkey_ I feel possessed_ I feel abused. On the edge. I know I am a decent person. My personality has split. I need help. I do not feel safe. I am seeing strange things in people. I notice strange things in myself. I don't know who I am anymore. I am ready to give up. I don't trust anyone. I don't really want to speak to anyone. I don't want to do anything.

noel emits
01-10-2007, 05:11 PM
Exercise and good healthy food are very important.

Try jumping up and down and laughing hysterically.

Then eat a banana. ;)

What medication are you on by the way?

mistersloane
01-10-2007, 05:20 PM
Hi jaie,

You really need to speak to your doctor about this, or change a doctor if the one you are seeing isn't helping you in the way you feel you might need or want. I'd also add that if you're smoking weed you should really cut that one out immediately eh?

nomadologist
01-10-2007, 05:24 PM
I'm 20 years old and I live in London. I feel like I'm slowly going insane. I cannot maintain rational thought. I am easily aggitated and my energy is becoming disruptive. I find it hard to be at peace for long periods of time. My thought flow is often interrupted. I find it difficult to differentiate between what is real and un-real. I am trying to remain calm and focused. I often get woken up at random times and feel an urge to be active. I find it difficult to exist in a space without being intruded upon. I am very dis tractable. I've been medicated for the past 2.5 years. I don't want to be locked away. I feel like I have to do things-like run or skip. I hear voices. I think I've been poisoned. I feel like people are coming after me. I like music. I feel lost. I feel ugly_my thoughts are ugly_ Words resonate with me_ I pick up on sounds and emotions_that are not mine. I feel like a caged monkey_ I feel possessed_ I feel abused. On the edge. I know I am a decent person. My personality has split. I need help. I do not feel safe. I am seeing strange things in people. I notice strange things in myself. I don't know who I am anymore. I am ready to give up. I don't trust anyone. I don't really want to speak to anyone. I don't want to do anything.

It also sounds like whatever medication they've had you on is exactly the wrong thing. I am guessing you've been misdiagnosed and they gave you something like ADD medication which can in fact speed up the progression of certain disorders (like schizophrenia).

Talk to a doctor either way.

IdleRich
01-10-2007, 05:26 PM
I'm sorry to hear this Jaie. Last time you posted on dissensus you seemed really happy and excited about your shop (I hope that that is going well for you by the way).
Haven't really got any good advice I'm afraid but with a bit of luck you can get some out of this thread or elsewhere. It was brave of you to put that message up and I hope that it leads to you feeling better and getting advice from someone who knows about this kind of thing.

Jaie Miller
01-10-2007, 05:28 PM
Thank you.

Respiridone

ex.Olanzapine.

(Will find time and space to do those things)

~Jaie

nomadologist
01-10-2007, 05:29 PM
Ahhhh I know lots of people who have a lot of trouble with risperidone. Tell your doctor *everything* you think might be a side effect and I am sure you will be on the right track soon...

Jaie Miller
01-10-2007, 05:34 PM
Last time I tried to commit suicide was entertaining thoughts about getting healthy. I don't smoke weed/drink. The doctor said I should be given injections......or sectioned.....:confused:

I'm a creative person. The meds were in the name of Jake.....

My grandma looked at me and she asked what's wrong...

nomadologist
01-10-2007, 05:37 PM
Yeah, but check this out, one of the most common side effects of risperidone in people who shouldn't be on it is akathisia:


Akathisia, or acathisia, is an unpleasant subjective sensation of "inner" restlessness that manifests itself with an inability to sit still or remain motionless, hence its origin [ Ancient Greek α (a), without, not + κάθισις (káthisis), sitting]. Its most common cause is as a side effect of medications, mainly neuroleptic antipsychotics especially the phenothiazines (such as perphenazine and chlorpromazine), thioxanthenes (such as flupenthixol and zuclopenthixol) and butyrophenones (such as haloperidol (Haldol)), piperazines (such as ziprasidone), and rarely, antidepressants. Akathisia can also, to a lesser extent, be caused by Parkinson disease-related syndromes.[1]

Akathisia may range in intensity from a mild sense of disquiet or anxiety (which may be easily overlooked) to a total inability to sit still, accompanied by overwhelming anxiety, malaise, and severe dysphoria (manifesting as an almost indescribable sense of terror and doom). Partly because the condition is difficult for the patient to describe, it is often misdiagnosed. When misdiagnosis occurs in antipsychotic neuroleptic-induced akathisia, more antipsychotic neuroleptics may be prescribed, potentially worsening the symptoms.[1] High functioning patients have described the feeling as a sense of inner tension and torment or chemical torture from the inside out.

Akathisia makes some patients act out in violent fits of rage throwing and breaking things or harming others. Ironically antipsychotic drugs are many times prescribed as “mood stabilizers” but then have the opposite intended effect, which often leads to increased doses further escalating the symptoms when the intent was to ameliorate the symptoms.

Your doctor should be told anytime the suicidal thoughts come back. S/He may be right about the injections, if compliance has been an "issue" ;) If you've really been taking the prescribed dose regularly as you've been told, they should really try something else.

Whether it feels like or not sometimes, I'm sure your doctor does want what's best for you.

mixed_biscuits
01-10-2007, 05:40 PM
Temporary move back to the parents/rellies/good friends for a clear routine, (relative) calm and protection?

Mr. Tea
01-10-2007, 06:19 PM
I don't trust anyone. I don't really want to speak to anyone. I don't want to do anything.

You're trusting us, sort of. You're speaking to us. You must want to change the situation you're in, otherwise you wouldn't be telliing us about it! So I would say that most important thing to do is to stop yourself from giving up on yourself...things may be shitty at the moment, and when you're really down it's hard to feel like things could ever be any different. Sorry I can't really offer anything more specific than that, but there are people on here who have experience with mental illness and medication, so listen to them. And if there's a friend, relative or anyone like that you think you can talk to, then do so - don't worry about 'saddling them with a burden': you need help and no reasonable, decent person is going to resent you for taking up their time. Talk to people you know and just tell them what's going on - I think this is a very important complement to whatever kind of professional treatment you may also be getting.

Sorry again for being so vague, hope some of this helps.

noel emits
01-10-2007, 06:22 PM
Last time I tried to commit suicide was entertaining thoughts about getting healthy.
Don't tell me you tried jogging? :eek:

bruno
01-10-2007, 06:26 PM
jaie, you are real, and you are able to communicate your thoughts to others in a very clear way in spite of everything, that is truly admirable. medication aside, the only way to regain ownership of yourself is to sleep well, eat well and see/hear beautiful things, and to do all this in an orderly fashion. use an alarm clock or ask someone to lend you one and abide by a strict schedule, do this even if you have managed to sleep only one hour. have three meals a day and accompany the last with a glass of wine, you need to relax and to let your thoughts wander a bit before going to sleep. find a place in london with green things and water and spend an hour or two there each day. you need to take yourself and the world around you less seriously, the worst that can happen is that you lose touch with reality completey but even that will be temporary. keep that and the fact that you are real and intelligent in mind at all times and things will become settled once again. good luck :)

bruno
01-10-2007, 06:31 PM
above all listen to mr tea, the voice of reason :)

Mr. Tea
01-10-2007, 06:33 PM
above all listen to mr tea, the voice of reason :)

Ta...'snot often I hear that round these parts! :D

noel emits
01-10-2007, 06:37 PM
Ta...'snot often I hear that round these parts! :D
That's cos reason is overrated. ;)

mixed_biscuits
01-10-2007, 06:39 PM
Do not go to sleep after midnight - I find it invariably puts me in a much worse mental state the day after, however many hours I subsequently manage to sleep (in fact, I would credit the worst periods of sorrowfulness in my life to poor sleeping habits exarcebating negative moods). Keeping late hours also encourages one to feel estranged from the general flow of public life and nature's rhythms.

Obv this thread will generate a counter-productively overwhelming list of 100 mental health must-dos. Conclusion: only listen to Mr Tea.

zhao
01-10-2007, 06:41 PM
keep that and the fact that you are real and intelligent.

just from the honesty of your message i can tell you are a good and lovely person.

and beautiful as well. self image and perception can shift drastically, but very hard to imagine when one is all the way on one side of the penduluum.

when i was at a very low point in my life someone suggested this: look at self in the mirror before going to bed and before rising, and saying to the reflection: "i love you and i care about you." sounds corny but does work.

also, i recommend Yoga. it does wonders to get rid of nervous energy, calm the spirit, and re-alignment to your mental and physical center. especially maybe the kinds of yoga with breathing excercises, but you should ask the teacher about it.

continuum
01-10-2007, 06:57 PM
Your first post is a perfect description of the average Westerner ;)

Stay off as many drugs (legal or illegal) as possible and express yourself all the time. Ignore all media and anyone who makes you feel worse. Find a job or place or both where you feel happy - dedicate yourself to this. Never give up - people make it out of these situations all the time even if it takes a while. Good luck! :)

nomadologist
01-10-2007, 07:31 PM
Of course, it is everyone's personal decision whether they decide to use pharmaceutical therapy or not; I would never recommend taking just *anything* and not getting second opinions.

However, ESPECIALLY in cases where suicidal ideation is present, it is wholly irresponsible (and obviously uninformed) to suggest that someone refuse medical treatment.

The problem is that once your life is out of balance due to mental illness, one often *CAN'T* do the things Mr. Tea and others are suggesting that create balance and order and "normalcy".

noel emits
01-10-2007, 07:42 PM
The problem is that once your life is out of balance due to mental illness, one often *CAN'T* do the things Mr. Tea and others are suggesting that create balance and order and "normalcy".
Yep. That's why I say eat well and get a little exercise. It's easy to neglect those things but the simple basic stuff can help to bring a little stability quickly and you can more easily take it from there.

nomadologist
01-10-2007, 07:47 PM
Yep. That's why I say eat well and get a little exercise. It's easy to neglect those things but the simple basic stuff can help to bring a little stability quickly and you can more easily take it from there.

For an otherwise "normal" person, sure. Unfortunately, if your mental health is already jeopardized, many of these things alone will not work.

noel emits
01-10-2007, 08:12 PM
For an otherwise "normal" person, sure. Unfortunately, if your mental health is already jeopardized, many of these things alone will not work.
Nobody on this thread has suggested that good food, sleep or breathing exercises will 'work' to fix absolutely any and every ailment. They are however very simple things you can do to help yourself and get moving in the right direction.

Guybrush
01-10-2007, 08:15 PM
Do not go to sleep after midnight - I find it invariably puts me in a much worse mental state the day after, however many hours I subsequently manage to sleep (in fact, I would credit the worst periods of sorrowfulness in my life to poor sleeping habits exarcebating negative moods). Keeping late hours also encourages one to feel estranged from the general flow of public life and nature's rhythms.

This is exceedingly OTM, and so is what Bruno said about having a Preussian bearing towards your daily routines. Even though the feeling of estrangement described above may have its upsides, you would probably do well avoiding mucking about with Mother Nature for the time being. That goes for all kinds of stimulants, too. And should insomnia get the better of you despite your best efforts, never say die: Aphex Twin, ‘The King’, and just about every writer under the sun, have sworn by its virtues.

nomadologist
01-10-2007, 08:31 PM
Nobody on this thread has suggested that good food, sleep or breathing exercises will 'work' to fix absolutely any and every ailment. They are however very simple things you can do to help yourself and get moving in the right direction.

Just clarifying.

nomadologist
01-10-2007, 08:33 PM
you would probably do well avoiding mucking about with Mother Nature for the time being

Unfortunately, it's "Mother Nature" that made some people have defective brain chemistry. I would recommend talking to professionals no matter what home remedies you employ. I am telling you this as someone who has gone through several diagnoses and my own battle with schizoaffective disorder.

mistersloane
01-10-2007, 08:40 PM
Thank you.

Respiridone

ex.Olanzapine.

(Will find time and space to do those things)

~Jaie

Jaie my partner's a doctor and asking him, he's said that often the very drugs that you're on for those sort of things may adversely affect you, i.e you may get the very symptoms you are trying to avoid. He strongly suggests speaking to your doctor to either up the dose or change the medication that you're on, good luck, and please let us know how it goes.

How's the shop btw?

noel emits
01-10-2007, 08:40 PM
Unfortunately, it's "Mother Nature" that made some people have defective brain chemistry.
'Some' people, yes, but then mostly by accident. You've got to wonder how many more brain problems are the result of dysfunctional 'civilised' lifestyles though.

Mr. Tea
01-10-2007, 08:43 PM
'Some' people, yes, but then mostly by accident. You've got to wonder how many more brain problems are the result of dysfunctional 'civilised' lifestyles though.

Well we can sit here and theorise about that until we're blue in the face but I assume building a wigwam in Hyde park and living on rainwater and raw squirrel probably isn't an option for Mr. Miller here.

nomadologist
01-10-2007, 08:46 PM
Jaie my partner's a doctor and asking him, he's said that often the very drugs that you're on for those sort of things may adversely affect you, i.e you may get the very symptoms you are trying to avoid. He strongly suggests speaking to your doctor to either up the dose or change the medication that you're on, good luck, and please let us know how it goes.

How's the shop btw?

Thank you for getting a professional opinion :)

nomadologist
01-10-2007, 08:49 PM
'Some' people, yes, but then mostly by accident. You've got to wonder how many more brain problems are the result of dysfunctional 'civilised' lifestyles though.

Don't know what you mean when you say "by accident", but yeah, stress and our generally intensely overly stressful way of life does not help.

noel emits
01-10-2007, 08:55 PM
Well we can sit here and theorise about that until we're blue in the face but I assume building a wigwam in Hyde park and living on rainwater and raw squirrel probably isn't an option for Mr. Miller here.
Well that's all very amusing but I was just talking about logic and 'clarifying' that nomad's 'mother nature causes some people to have defective brain chemistry' does not mean that 'all brain chemistry defects are caused by mother nature'. Arguments about what and what isn't 'natural' notwithstanding.

But anyway it's no great bloody esoteric theory that many aspects of modern life are just not good for your health. And don't say 'getting eaten by a sabre-tooth tiger isn't too good for health either'. :mad:

noel emits
01-10-2007, 08:56 PM
Don't know what you mean when you say "by accident", but yeah, stress and our generally intensely overly stressful way of life does not help.
By 'by accident' I mean genetic defects / mutations. i.e. not things that have been actively selected for or desired.

nomadologist
01-10-2007, 08:59 PM
Ahhh ok. Well, most of our "good" traits came by accident, too.

noel emits
01-10-2007, 09:15 PM
Ahhh ok. Well, most of our "good" traits came by accident, too.
According to a recent survey, 87% of American's said they would disagree with the above statement. ;)

nomadologist
01-10-2007, 09:18 PM
god bless creationists

fishe
02-10-2007, 05:28 AM
Well we can sit here and theorise about that until we're blue in the face but I assume building a wigwam in Hyde park and living on rainwater and raw squirrel probably isn't an option for Mr. Miller here.

haha, too funny...this is a good reason why I find myself lurking more and more around here...

fishe
02-10-2007, 05:32 AM
But anyway it's no great bloody esoteric theory that many aspects of modern life are just not good for your health. And don't say 'getting eaten by a sabre-tooth tiger isn't too good for health either'. :mad:

Yeah agreed...but problems arise when this type of argument is used as an 'emotional blanket retort' to seemingly solve issues and make the user happier about the world - i.e. it isn't very often constructive.

But of course it can be...the hard part is finding the parts of modern life that hinder, and the parts that help, the individual.

noel emits
02-10-2007, 09:12 AM
Yeah agreed...but problems arise when this type of argument is used as an 'emotional blanket retort' to seemingly solve issues and make the user happier about the world - i.e. it isn't very often constructive.

But of course it can be...the hard part is finding the parts of modern life that hinder, and the parts that help, the individual.
Well first of all, as I have already explained, I said that modern lifestyles can be unhealthy to counter the inference that 'all mental problems are the result of congenital brain disorders'.

Second 'finding the parts that hinder' is not difficult - try bad food, bad air, bad media, bad work, bad government, alienation, disenfranchisement, the fact that everything is fucked and pretty much everyone is a moron? LOL Or what about anti-psychotic medication perhaps? :slanted:

Thirdly, you agree with the statement and yet you think it could be used as an 'emotional blanket retort'? So the truth is not good enough now?

noel emits
02-10-2007, 09:31 AM
haha, too funny...this is a good reason why I find myself lurking more and more around here...
You lurk around to read Mr Tea's predictable quips?

Why do some people find it so important to dispute, even ridicule the notion, that modern 'urban' lifestyles (and that doesn't mean what brand of hoody you wear), can contribute to mental illness? Could it be because that would mean you yourself might be susceptible? Is it so terrifying to consider that people are not necessarily mental because they were just born that way?

Sorry for hijacking your thread Jaie, hope you get things sorted. Take care.

Mr. Tea
02-10-2007, 11:08 AM
I seem to have sparked off something of a debate here (a debate? On Dissensus? Like, NO WAY! :))...

At heart I agree with noel's point about lots of aspects of modern city life being conducive to depression and mental illness; I suppose what made me quip about wigwams and squirrels was that it seemed like a fairly fatalistic attitude, almost "oh well, you live in London in 2007, you're bound to lose it sooner or later". I think the way to cope with all the stuff that can get you down is to see things like rampant consumerism, heavy traffic, the noise, the crowds etc. etc. either as means to end (e.g. we have shops so we buy stuff, not so we can shop for the sake of shopping) or simply as unfortunate byproducts of living in a big, crowded city (e.g. until everyone decides to walk or cycle everywhere, there will always be heavy traffic). That, and spend as much time as you can enjoying the many good things about living in a city in a highly developed country (possibly excluding the more 'vibrant' sort of nightlife if you're in a fragile mental state as it is, of course).

So as other people on here have I think already mentioned, it's perhaps more a case of just looking at things differently rather than doing anything drastically different.

tht
02-10-2007, 11:53 AM
jaie the drugs you are taking might be causing some of those symptoms, antipsychotics like risperidone cause akithisia, a restless can't-sit-still sort of agitation

if you never felt like that before you were given the drugs then it's worth talking to your doctors about

they could do different things like giving you another antipsychotic that might not be as harsh as risperidone, or prescribing another drug to counteract side effects (it that's what's happening) - the drugs are supposed to ease paranoia and hallucinations; it doesn't sound like they're working so well and the doctors need to know that

does anyone here have experiences themselves or of close relatives or friends suffering from the same symptoms? cos i feel like i should give more advice but i don't think i know enough, so i'll just suggest-

talk to the doctors as often as they'll allow you, they're probably reasonable people and if they see that you want to get better they will be more helpful, if you read about the drugs and ask them questions and maybe ask them to get you referrals to psychologists who might be more helpful to talk with about this stuff (psychiatrists treat everything in a colder clinical way with less concern for individual experiences and feelings)

bruno
02-10-2007, 01:05 PM
i hope s/he is ok :(

Gavin
02-10-2007, 06:36 PM
Last night I saw a commercial for a drug for Restless Leg Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restless_leg_syndrome) and one of the stated side effects was COMPULSIVE GAMBLING -- what the fuck!

Mr. Tea
02-10-2007, 06:46 PM
I was prescribed that, but the other drug they gave me stop my compulsive gambling made me squeeze the toothpaste in the middle of the tube. :(:(:(:(

hundredmillionlifetimes
02-10-2007, 07:31 PM
jaie the drugs you are taking might be causing some of those symptoms, antipsychotics like risperidone cause akithisia, a restless can't-sit-still sort of agitation

if you never felt like that before you were given the drugs then it's worth talking to your doctors about

they could do different things like giving you another antipsychotic that might not be as harsh as risperidone, or prescribing another drug to counteract side effects (it that's what's happening) - the drugs are supposed to ease paranoia and hallucinations; it doesn't sound like they're working so well and the doctors need to know that

...

Yes, Jaie's lucid description of his dyschronia (which frequently manifests as a near suicidal-inducing, inescapable sense of invasive terror and doom) suggests a neuroleptic-induced akathisia that has been directly brought on by his move to being prescribed Risperidone (a dopamine inhibitor). He states up-thread that he was previously prescribed Olanzapine (Zyprexa). Unlike Risperidone, which is a non-sedating antipsychotic, Olanzapine is a sedating antipsychotic and so reduces the likelihood of akathisia. Perhaps, then, his doctor should be recommending returning to Olanzapine again, combined with a treatment for the antipsychotic akathhisia, such treatments varying from beta-blockers like metaprolol to benzodiazepines to - even - nicotine patches, depending on symptoms.

[That said, such 20th century writers as Philip K Dick and William S Burroughs spent much of their literary lives portraying and articulating Jaie's experiences, not to mention the chap who scream-painted this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/The_Scream.jpg/300px-The_Scream.jpg

gek-opel
02-10-2007, 10:13 PM
Tell me more about Akathisia. How is different from mania?
I fear I have been suffering from something akin to this for many years (literally unable to sit still, having to get up and pace, clicking fingers, clapping, a tense agitation somewhere between paranoia and euphoria... rage and grandiosity.) Maybe just mania though. Hmm.

tht
02-10-2007, 11:51 PM
akithisia is essentially somatic, anhedonic and not at all euphoric i would have thought

that sort of transient nervous hyperactivity possibly resembles a hypomanic episode but it's not the same thing, i sometimes feel like that for a few hours at a time if i try to concentrate intensely for more than about half an hour, then there's a rapid decathexis and i can't read or think and have to go eat junk food or post crap on dissensus

needless to say it's probably unhelpful and a little hypochondriac to compare this kinda thing to mania, which would be far more disabling and frightening

ripley
03-10-2007, 12:22 AM
I don't know who I am anymore. I am ready to give up. I don't trust anyone. I don't really want to speak to anyone. I don't want to do anything.

you have done something brave and smart by reaching out to people. Cheers to you for that.

I also agree you should check back with your doctor because much of this could be a side-effect of medication. Even if it's not, though, no doctor (or the rest of us) would say you deserve to feel like this, and a doctor should help you figure out what to change,

also seconding the enough sleep/healthy food/breathing clean air/exercise thing. Even when your emotions are in terrible shape, you can task yourself with keeping the body healthy.. and sometimes in so doing it will spill over into the mental health side of things.. If not, at least you'll be in great physical shape once you figure out the mental/emotional stuff!

Good luck
sending best wishes from Oakland, California.

fishe
03-10-2007, 08:07 AM
Well first of all, as I have already explained, I said that modern lifestyles can be unhealthy to counter the inference that 'all mental problems are the result of congenital brain disorders'.

Second 'finding the parts that hinder' is not difficult - try bad food, bad air, bad media, bad work, bad government, alienation, disenfranchisement, the fact that everything is fucked and pretty much everyone is a moron? LOL Or what about anti-psychotic medication perhaps? :slanted:

Thirdly, you agree with the statement and yet you think it could be used as an 'emotional blanket retort'? So the truth is not good enough now?

Agreeing with a statement while asserting conditions as to its effective use seems very reasonable no? :)

And yes, I agree with you that modern society can be a factor in mental health - or a better way to put it - environment is a significant element in many mental illnesses. Of course, mixed with genetic conditions as well in many cases. But the point is, it's a mix, and environment is a factor.

A lot of those 'bad parts' of modern society you've mentioned though (not the more biological ones like air quality) affect different individuals in different ways - they are subjective. And as like Mr Tea said, it's all about how one views them.

There are many interesting culture-based studies about, for example, asian attitudes to something 'vs' western attitudes and the consequent impact on mental health. And of course the underlying notion of most modern therapy these days is a cognitive behavioural approach, where the thoughts/feelings of the individual drive their perspective on the world and in turn their mental health.

Also, let's not get all Adbusters on anti-psychotics. There is no great conspiracy. The drugs have their place and do worlds of good for many. Yes they are misused in cases. Yes, stricter controls and more education need to be applied. No they're not some evil object and shouldn't be abolished.

noel emits
03-10-2007, 10:04 AM
Agreeing with a statement while asserting conditions as to its effective use seems very reasonable no? :)
You weren't just 'asserting' conditions of the statement's use, you were misreading and misrepresenting my position. I stated that some things are not good for you, you put the rest of the inferences in there.

And yes, I agree with you that modern society can be a factor in mental health - or a better way to put it - environment is a significant element in many mental illnesses. Of course, mixed with genetic conditions as well in many cases. But the point is, it's a mix, and environment is a factor.
A mix, in some cases. One or the other in other cases. This isn't about prejudices or biases or favoured causes, it's just about statistics and logic.

A lot of those 'bad parts' of modern society you've mentioned though (not the more biological ones like air quality) affect different individuals in different ways - they are subjective. And as like Mr Tea said, it's all about how one views them.

There are many interesting culture-based studies about, for example, asian attitudes to something 'vs' western attitudes and the consequent impact on mental health. And of course the underlying notion of most modern therapy these days is a cognitive behavioural approach, where the thoughts/feelings of the individual drive their perspective on the world and in turn their mental health.
How one views something is part of one's cultural 'environment'. That was actually a big part of what I meant by 'lifestyle'. So yes it does indeed have some bearing on how we respond to things.

Also, let's not get all Adbusters on anti-psychotics. There is no great conspiracy. The drugs have their place and do worlds of good for many. Yes they are misused in cases. Yes, stricter controls and more education need to be applied. No they're not some evil object and shouldn't be abolished.
Adbusters? Conspiracy? What are you talking about?

Look, of course express your point of view but please stop misrepresenting my position by implication.

zhao
03-10-2007, 10:12 AM
how are you Jaie? you doing OK?

tht
03-10-2007, 10:19 AM
Look, of course express your point of view but please stop misrepresenting my position by implication

that seems to be the general case for those who think 'yes [tautology] no [fallacy] no [fallacy]' is an acceptable rhetorical form

fishe
08-10-2007, 08:46 AM
A mix, in some cases. One or the other in other cases. This isn't about prejudices or biases or favoured causes, it's just about statistics and logic.


Wouldn't it be difficult to say that even in some/other cases it's solely one or the other? I know that's not the point here and a whole new ballgame, just wondering if you really meant that.




Look, of course express your point of view but please stop misrepresenting my position by implication.

My apologies - it's something I do sometimes to 'speed up' text-based things like this - assume a position for the person behind the text. Although, of course depending how it goes, it can piss people off hehe :)

Specifically as well I had just recently had to inform a friend who's undergrad psych and right into the whole 'anti depressants are evil' idea at the moment - so it was pressing in my mind - sorry for spewing forth on you!

Jaie Miller
10-10-2007, 05:11 PM
Thank you everyone. I am feeling much better. I have been to see a doctor and we spoke, times of medication have shifted, dosage etc. ( like i said i dont smoke or drink-cutting down on meat, and no cow milk. )

The-da- shop is ok it's where I'm at!

:)

dHarry
10-10-2007, 05:50 PM
That's great news Jaie :)

Guybrush
10-10-2007, 07:13 PM
Yes, glad to hear that!

goomba
11-10-2007, 02:15 PM
Eat a tin of tuna everday, its good for the brain!

tht
11-10-2007, 02:21 PM
thirded, glad to know things are better!

Mr. Tea
11-10-2007, 03:23 PM
Eat a tin of tuna everday, its good for the brain!

It's not too great for the tuna, though. Ba-dum TISH!
Great sig, by the way.

nomadologist
18-10-2007, 04:23 PM
Tell me more about Akathisia. How is different from mania?
I fear I have been suffering from something akin to this for many years (literally unable to sit still, having to get up and pace, clicking fingers, clapping, a tense agitation somewhere between paranoia and euphoria... rage and grandiosity.) Maybe just mania though. Hmm.

FIRST: Goomba, wrong again. Canned tuna is full of mercury, which can be poisonous and isn't good for anyone let alone someone who is mentally ill. Just wanted to get that out of the way.

@Gek

This sounds a little like mania, but the level of anxiety accompanying your mania either means it's not full-blown mania, where you completely lose any sense of what you "ought not" to do), but hypomania. or you're a pretty textbook bipolar II and, having gone untreated, it's seriously affecting your life (which often happens to those with bipolar II). it really depends on whether this mania lasts at least a couple weeks at a time and is followed by similarly long episodes of depression where you can barely move (this is what i get).

you might at least talk to a doctor. i've also heard people with excess adrenal gland production having similar issues to yours. or super fast metabolisms.

nomadologist
18-10-2007, 04:27 PM
Tell me more about Akathisia. How is different from mania?
I fear I have been suffering from something akin to this for many years (literally unable to sit still, having to get up and pace, clicking fingers, clapping, a tense agitation somewhere between paranoia and euphoria... rage and grandiosity.) Maybe just mania though. Hmm.

also sounds kinda like ADD, though I hate to say it

gek-opel
18-10-2007, 05:15 PM
FIRST: Goomba, wrong again. Canned tuna is full of mercury, which can be poisonous and isn't good for anyone let alone someone who is mentally ill. Just wanted to get that out of the way.

@Gek

This sounds a little like mania, but the level of anxiety accompanying your mania either means it's not full-blown mania, where you completely lose any sense of what you "ought not" to do), but hypomania. or you're a pretty textbook bipolar II and, having gone untreated, it's seriously affecting your life (which often happens to those with bipolar II). it really depends on whether this mania lasts at least a couple weeks at a time and is followed by similarly long episodes of depression where you can barely move (this is what i get).

you might at least talk to a doctor. i've also heard people with excess adrenal gland production having similar issues to yours. or super fast metabolisms.

My thyroid was checked out a while ago, result being that apparently it is absolutely fine. Apparently my "cycles" are too brief, too rapid to count as Bipolar. But yeah brutal depression sometimes involved for sure. Also my mania never reaches the point of hardcore bipolar mania with the psychotic visions and stuff!

mixed_biscuits
18-10-2007, 05:42 PM
Recent posts support those who might posit a positive correlation between mental/emotional instability and hard left political views (every HMLT post?).

Personally, I'm hard pressed to think of any friends whose socialism is not accompanied by a heavy dose of personal angst.

Internal disquiet projected on the outside world.

Thoughts?

gek-opel
18-10-2007, 05:44 PM
Sorry to break Godwins law, but Hitler was hardly a happy chapy, was he?

mixed_biscuits
18-10-2007, 05:46 PM
Sorry to break Godwins law, but Hitler was hardly a happy chapy, was he?

Aye, probably best to rephrase as intense political views either way (tho' hard left and right have much in common). Anyway, the Nazis were nominally socialist, no?

gek-opel
18-10-2007, 05:47 PM
Yeah but beware internet personae- they can be quite different from IRL.

mixed_biscuits
18-10-2007, 05:48 PM
Yeah but beware internet personae- they can be quite different from IRL.

True, but truly (rather than ostensibly) well-balanced ppl generally don't create unbalanced personae.

Mr. Tea
18-10-2007, 05:51 PM
True, but truly (rather than ostensibly) well-balanced ppl generally don't create unbalanced personae.

The reverse isn't necessarily true, though. As it happens I'm currently butchering a hooker while whistling the Archers theme.

gek-opel
18-10-2007, 06:04 PM
The reverse isn't necessarily true, though. As it happens I'm currently butchering a hooker while whistling the Archers theme.

Hahahaha

swears
18-10-2007, 08:01 PM
Recent posts support those who might posit a positive correlation between mental/emotional instability and hard left political views (every HMLT post?).

Personally, I'm hard pressed to think of any friends whose socialism is not accompanied by a heavy dose of personal angst.

Internal disquiet projected on the outside world.

Thoughts?

In the current political climate, you can hardly blame a left winger for feeling down can you?

If you are apolitical, then there is a lot less to depress you. At the moment I'm trying to avoid broadsheets and radio 4, too much there to stir up powerless/misanthropic feelings.

bassnation
18-10-2007, 09:05 PM
In the current political climate, you can hardly blame a left winger for feeling down can you?

If you are apolitical, then there is a lot less to depress you. At the moment I'm trying to avoid broadsheets and radio 4, too much there to stir up powerless/misanthropic feelings.

i once knew a hardcore punk in cardiff who was very involved in many different political causes, animal rights, burma all kinds of shit. he was so immersed in the misery of others that it started getting to him, felt that it was impossible to make a difference. he ended up topping himself. i think he had other problems to be perfectly honest but my view is that yeah, theres bad things going on the world but theres also positive things to be thankful for too - one person might not be able to effect a change but you can't let that utterly defeat you as it has always been thus.

nomadologist
18-10-2007, 11:53 PM
Recent posts support those who might posit a positive correlation between mental/emotional instability and hard left political views (every HMLT post?).

Personally, I'm hard pressed to think of any friends whose socialism is not accompanied by a heavy dose of personal angst.

Internal disquiet projected on the outside world.

Thoughts?

my obvious death wish predates my political "views" by about 10-15 years, but yeah. i think you're probably right.

nomadologist
18-10-2007, 11:55 PM
My thyroid was checked out a while ago, result being that apparently it is absolutely fine. Apparently my "cycles" are too brief, too rapid to count as Bipolar. But yeah brutal depression sometimes involved for sure. Also my mania never reaches the point of hardcore bipolar mania with the psychotic visions and stuff!

you are one of the lucky ones! still, it's not easy even if it's brief. that's what i went throught when i was really young. sucked.

hundredmillionlifetimes
19-10-2007, 03:58 AM
Recent posts support those who might posit a positive correlation between mental/emotional instability and hard left political views (every HMLT post?).

Personally, I'm hard pressed to think of any friends whose socialism is not accompanied by a heavy dose of personal angst.

Internal disquiet projected on the outside world.

Thoughts?

Thinking is what is completely absent from your posts here, mixed_biscuits. If I were to personalise your contributions here (including your recent one, where you agreed 100% without qualification with Vimothy's politically-naive adolescent racist diatribes), it would suggest to me that you are very comfortable with what you imagine to be the 'outside world' (with capitalist-constructed realism, with the unexamined acceptance of existing power structures as natural and normal and as things should be, any questioning of which constituting 'evidence' of mental/emotional instability, precisely the same form of lethal hysteria which both the Nazis and the Stalinists took to its ultimate conclusion).

So let's then de-politicize all social and power relations and stigmatize all those who question your political psychopathology as 'suffering' from 'personal problems', as having a heavy dose of 'angst' and 'disquite' to be cured by a few visits to a Nu-Labour-friendly ego-psychotherapist. Your utterly vicious attempt to pathologize anyone who disagrees with your [and basket-case Vim's] reactionary and sickeningly racist prejudices [informed, as is the norm, by bland, ever-repeated ideology rather than experience or reason] suggests that it is you who is in urgent need of some serious social counselling. It is extraordinary to witness here the sheer extent of political decline in Britain (and I'm assuming here that Mix-the-cookie and Vim-kitchen-cleaner are British residents), where it is now routine to slanderously marginalize whole sections of society, to attribute any rational concern with 'socialist' issues to mental 'disease', to someone having 'personal problems'. Hilarious ... you forget that many Western countries still have legislation criminalizing incitements to racial hatred and violence, which is what Vim's and your posts here amount to ...

[And the bad, traumatic news: 'personally' you don't even exist].

hundredmillionlifetimes
19-10-2007, 05:47 AM
@Gek

This sounds a little like mania, but the level of anxiety accompanying your mania either means it's not full-blown mania, where you completely lose any sense of what you "ought not" to do), but hypomania. or you're a pretty textbook bipolar II and, having gone untreated, it's seriously affecting your life (which often happens to those with bipolar II). it really depends on whether this mania lasts at least a couple weeks at a time and is followed by similarly long episodes of depression where you can barely move (this is what i get).

you might at least talk to a doctor. i've also heard people with excess adrenal gland production having similar issues to yours. or super fast metabolisms.

With the proviso that I am always extremely cautious when it comes to making diagnoses or arbitrary recommendations via an internet forum based on minimal evidence [we've had posters here in the past cluelessly rushing forth (suggesting an anti-social neurosis on their part) 'recommending' the most violent and extreme courses of action, everything from 'sectioning' to electro-convulsive-therapy on the basis of the most minimal and deeply suspicious accounts of someone's behaviour) with suggestions as if they had such vast authoritative knowledge both of the ailment and of the 'patient' when in fact all they are doing is revealing their own innate, socially-hostile intolerances for what they don't understand [and don't want to understand], coming across as having the same secretly-vicious retro-sensibility as a News of the World hack. [And to be honest, I'd be much more worried about posters like Vim or Mixed-biscuits, whose warped ideologies have seriously destructive social effects on the wider society].

Gek's 'ailment' sounds perfectly harmless and probably has fairly reasonable psychic, social and physical explanations, nothing to get over-anxious about, or resort to self-reflexively instant 'symptom-diagnoses mapping' from the latest edition of the DSM manual. The level of radical mis-diagnosis [and dismissive non-diagnosis - M.E. for instance] of assorted posited illnesses and behavioural idiosyncracies is so unbelievably vast in a society so crippled by vested financial-social-political interests that it becomes so easy - effortless even - to become part of the problem oneself [And related to the inheritance tax thread, I'm sickened by the number of people I come across who actively transform and medicalise their elderly parent(s) into non-compus-mentus incompetents ("She's getting a bit forgetful, obviously it's Altzheimers, maybe it's best if we put her in a home") just after the Will has been finalised, shunting them off into a nursing home in full knowledge that it will kill them within a few months (who hasn't an elderly relative to whom this hasn't happened?), dying of chronic social dislocation, abandonment, isolation and loneliness, so that they can quickly and greedily get their hands on their parent's house and assets. This practice is so widespread as to be almost invisible. Who is the genuinely sick, psychologically damaged party here? And what underlying socio-economic structures are directly implicated?]

[BTW, Akathisia is not a 'natural' condition, it is a term attributed purely to certain auto-manic side-effects of particular psychotropic drugs, though it may indeed exhibit symptoms indistinguishable from other conditions].

That said, if I were living in Britain, and it were a psycho-socially civilized society, I would not hesitate to have the Vims of that world summarily 'sectioned' ... :cool:

mixed_biscuits
19-10-2007, 11:11 AM
Thinking is what is completely absent from your posts here, mixed_biscuits. If I were to personalise your contributions here (including your recent one, where you agreed 100% without qualification with Vimothy's politically-naive adolescent racist diatribes), it would suggest to me that you are very comfortable with what you imagine to be the 'outside world' (with capitalist-constructed realism, with the unexamined acceptance of existing power structures as natural and normal and as things should be, any questioning of which constituting 'evidence' of mental/emotional instability, precisely the same form of lethal hysteria which both the Nazis and the Stalinists took to its ultimate conclusion).

So let's then de-politicize all social and power relations and stigmatize all those who question your political psychopathology as 'suffering' from 'personal problems', as having a heavy dose of 'angst' and 'disquite' to be cured by a few visits to a Nu-Labour-friendly ego-psychotherapist. Your utterly vicious attempt to pathologize anyone who disagrees with your [and basket-case Vim's] reactionary and sickeningly racist prejudices [informed, as is the norm, by bland, ever-repeated ideology rather than experience or reason] suggests that it is you who is in urgent need of some serious social counselling. It is extraordinary to witness here the sheer extent of political decline in Britain (and I'm assuming here that Mix-the-cookie and Vim-kitchen-cleaner are British residents), where it is now routine to slanderously marginalize whole sections of society, to attribute any rational concern with 'socialist' issues to mental 'disease', to someone having 'personal problems'. Hilarious ... you forget that many Western countries still have legislation criminalizing incitements to racial hatred and violence, which is what Vim's and your posts here amount to ...

[And the bad, traumatic news: 'personally' you don't even exist].

Surely this post just proves my point?

IdleRich
19-10-2007, 11:46 AM
"Surely this post just proves my point?"
I don't think that proves your point at all. However nuts one guy is you can't generalise to the whole left.
In this one case I guess it is interesting to speculate as to whether the kooky far-left pseudo-intellectual nonsense broke his brain or whether a broken brain lead to his obsession with that nonsense. What was symptom and what was cause we'll never really know but personally I'd go for the latter way round. One thing is obvious, for someone with those kind of problems reading too much of that stuff is not going to help and the results are unfortunately rather plain to see: seeing racists that aren't there, repetitive use of meaningless phrases as though they win an argument, frustration when somehow someone fails to see his point of view, threats and - arguably saddest of all - the description of "fun" as "conformist capitalist nonsense".

gek-opel
19-10-2007, 12:20 PM
I'm still amused by the fact you think internet affect is any way to judge someone (ie- HMLT's occasional net-belligerence means he must be mentally ill... which actually entirely proves the point he has been making on this thread- that mental illness as category under capitalism can be used to contain almost anything dislikable or antithetical to the hegemony of the day, or as you put it Rich- "fun")

zhao
19-10-2007, 12:38 PM
critical stance arises out of discontent. simple fact though.

but i think well adjusted = asleep these days.

IdleRich
19-10-2007, 12:49 PM
"I'm still amused by the fact you think internet affect is any way to judge someone (ie- HMLT's occasional net-belligerence means he must be mentally ill... "
The obvious response there is, how do you know I really think that?
But I accept, you would have to guess (or at least hope) that HMLT would come across very differently in life to on dissensus. Obviously, in at least one sense the whole talking on the internet thing limits your judgments to that sphere but I think that you can only take someone to be as how they appear to be. You judge people on the internet by their intereactions with you and others, same as in the flesh... would you argue that meeting someone in the flesh wasn't necessarily a guide to how they really are, perhaps you would? Of course it's entirely possible that HMLT simply pretents to be a permanently annoyed and deliberately obtuse parody and Vimothy (for example) is really a communist having a laugh but in some way the characters that they have created are real and exist in cyberspace don't they? I only interact with the online creations and that's effectively what I take to be real.
A guestion for you Gek, suppose that you were to meet HMLT in the flesh and he was exactly as he was on the internet, do you think that you would leave that meeting thinking something along the lines of "blimey!"?
Dunno what you mean by this bit though


....can be used to contain almost anything dislikable or antithetical to the hegemony of the day, or as you put it Rich- "fun"
Can be used to contain fun? Or are you saying I described the hegemony of the day as fun? Because I certainly didn't describe it as anything, I was just repeating a conversation between two other people.

mixed_biscuits
19-10-2007, 12:58 PM
I don't think that proves your point at all. However nuts one guy is you can't generalise to the whole left.

No - I just meant my point re HTML's enthusiastic posts. Twas badly put - my bad.


In this one case I guess it is interesting to speculate as to whether the kooky far-left pseudo-intellectual nonsense broke his brain or whether a broken brain lead to his obsession with that nonsense. What was symptom and what was cause we'll never really know but personally I'd go for the latter way round. One thing is obvious, for someone with those kind of problems reading too much of that stuff is not going to help and the results are unfortunately rather plain to see: seeing racists that aren't there, repetitive use of meaningless phrases as though they win an argument, frustration when somehow someone fails to see his point of view, threats and - arguably saddest of all - the description of "fun" as "conformist capitalist nonsense".

Tee hee. :D

Mr. Tea
19-10-2007, 12:59 PM
If I may interject here, I'd guess what Gek is getting at is the enshrinement of 'fun' as the object of highest aspiration in much of contemporary popular culture, and the inevitable vacuity of having that kind of outlook on the world (or something like that, anyway). While I think there is something in this, you can certainly go much too far the other way as well, and end up as a spluttering, gibbering, ultra-critical, hyper-cum-pseudo-intellectual miseryguts. Of course it doesn't make you 'mad' just because you espouse left-wing views - and let's remember that political positions are somewhat relative, in that I've been called a 'communist' by Vimothy on the same day I was called a 'fascist' by HMLT :D - but at the same time, isn't anhedonia symptomatic of a range of psychological disorders?

gek-opel
19-10-2007, 01:03 PM
There's all kinds of jouissance external to mere "fun" of course.

Mr. Tea
19-10-2007, 01:27 PM
Well yes, but to dismiss the entire concept as some sort of "conformist capitalist nonsense" does sound a bit sad, doesn't it?

mixed_biscuits
19-10-2007, 01:30 PM
Well yes, but to dismiss the entire concept as some sort of "conformist capitalist nonsense" does sound a bit sad, doesn't it?

Dismissing concepts is fun.

Mr. Tea
19-10-2007, 01:34 PM
Dismissing concepts is fun.

I'll dismiss you in a minute!

(Chance'd be a fine thing, etc. etc. :))

Slothrop
19-10-2007, 02:20 PM
While I think there is something in this, you can certainly go much too far the other way as well, and end up as a spluttering, gibbering, ultra-critical, hyper-cum-pseudo-intellectual miseryguts.
"If I can't dance, I don't want your revolution!" - Emma Goldman.

hundredmillionlifetimes
19-10-2007, 02:42 PM
Surely this post just proves my point?

Is that a fun question or just yet further confirmation that your ideas are even more mixed-up and crumblier than your biscuits as to now be a mountain of pulverized quick-sand? Maybe you'd be on safer ground by sticking to the football, but, alas ...


Of course nobody watched Scotland-Georgia.

As if anybody in England is interested in football per se.

... breathless, unblinking insularity.


I'm still amused by the fact you think internet affect is any way to judge someone (ie- HMLT's occasional net-belligerence means he must be mentally ill... which actually entirely proves the point he has been making on this thread- that mental illness as category under capitalism can be used to contain almost anything dislikable or antithetical to the hegemony of the day, or as you put it Rich- "fun")

What's also of interest here is how the concept of racism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racist)becomes so disavowed and muddled as to be completely spirited out of existence, every instance rationalized as its anti-thesis, much like we'll once again see Richard Dawkins coming to the 'defence' of James Watson's latest outbursts: It's elementary, my dear Watson (http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/071018-ap-watson-gaff.html).


seeing racists that aren't there

What, they've scarpered? The drawing attention to the repeated expression of racist sentiments by particular posters can of course be attributed to delusion in idlerich's quaintly paranoid universe.

Mr. Tea
19-10-2007, 02:43 PM
"If I can't dance, I don't want your revolution!" - Emma Goldman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_dance_revolution ???

nomadologist
19-10-2007, 03:29 PM
With the proviso that I am always extremely cautious when it comes to making diagnoses or arbitrary recommendations via an internet forum based on minimal evidence [we've had posters here in the past cluelessly rushing forth (suggesting an anti-social neurosis on their part) 'recommending' the most violent and extreme courses of action, everything from 'sectioning' to electro-convulsive-therapy on the basis of the most minimal and deeply suspicious accounts of someone's behaviour) with suggestions as if they had such vast authoritative knowledge both of the ailment and of the 'patient' when in fact all they are doing is revealing their own innate, socially-hostile intolerances for what they don't understand [and don't want to understand], coming across as having the same secretly-vicious retro-sensibility as a News of the World hack. [And to be honest, I'd be much more worried about posters like Vim or Mixed-biscuits, whose warped ideologies have seriously destructive social effects on the wider society].

Gek's 'ailment' sounds perfectly harmless and probably has fairly reasonable psychic, social and physical explanations, nothing to get over-anxious about, or resort to self-reflexively instant 'symptom-diagnoses mapping' from the latest edition of the DSM manual. The level of radical mis-diagnosis [and dismissive non-diagnosis - M.E. for instance] of assorted posited illnesses and behavioural idiosyncracies is so unbelievably vast in a society so crippled by vested financial-social-political interests that it becomes so easy - effortless even - to become part of the problem oneself [And related to the inheritance tax thread, I'm sickened by the number of people I come across who actively transform and medicalise their elderly parent(s) into non-compus-mentus incompetents ("She's getting a bit forgetful, obviously it's Altzheimers, maybe it's best if we put her in a home") just after the Will has been finalised, shunting them off into a nursing home in full knowledge that it will kill them within a few months (who hasn't an elderly relative to whom this hasn't happened?), dying of chronic social dislocation, abandonment, isolation and loneliness, so that they can quickly and greedily get their hands on their parent's house and assets. This practice is so widespread as to be almost invisible. Who is the genuinely sick, psychologically damaged party here? And what underlying socio-economic structures are directly implicated?]

[BTW, Akathisia is not a 'natural' condition, it is a term attributed purely to certain auto-manic side-effects of particular psychotropic drugs, though it may indeed exhibit symptoms indistinguishable from other conditions].

That said, if I were living in Britain, and it were a psycho-socially civilized society, I would not hesitate to have the Vims of that world summarily 'sectioned' ... :cool:

These are all important disclaimers. I am not a doctor (though I'd like to be), I'm just comparing symptoms to people I know who have similar symptoms and have been through the ENTIRE BATTERY of psychiatric tests for bipolar I/bipolar II, ADD, etc.

While I think you're correct about many societies here, on this side of the Atlantic we've come full-circle--we're in the "backlash to the backlash" stages in terms of psychotherapy and psycho-pharmacology. Where in the 90s every child who was from a "bad home" who had behavior problems was instantly labelled ADD and put on ritalin from age 5 on up [switched at puberty to adderall, of course), now there's a whole lot of scepticism over here about psychiatric treatments and being "labelled" with a mental illness (the Dr. Philification of America) and I think people with real problems are needlessly suffering.

Of course, misdiagnosis/overdiagnoses is/are a danger, but I think it's a WHOLE LOT MORE IRRESPONSIBLE to trivialize anyone's psychologically uncomfortable symptoms or experiences. I would rather err on the side of caution, knowing how the failure to treat serious mental illness tends to accelerate its effects, and recommend checking in with a doctor or psychiatrist on an internet forum. People need to realize that should they be properly diagnosed, they fucking DESERVE TO FEEL BETTER IF THEY CAN.

nomadologist
19-10-2007, 03:33 PM
I'm still amused by the fact you think internet affect is any way to judge someone (ie- HMLT's occasional net-belligerence means he must be mentally ill... which actually entirely proves the point he has been making on this thread- that mental illness as category under capitalism can be used to contain almost anything dislikable or antithetical to the hegemony of the day, or as you put it Rich- "fun")

This was my actual reaction to mixed_biscuits, but I decided being self-deprecating would work better here.

Is there anything that scares the "normals" more than someone who isn't afraid to admit that they have been through hellish psychological problems? Nope. I'm used to it now. Usually if you throw them a bone (looks at HMTL) they go away and leave you alone.

gek-opel
19-10-2007, 03:41 PM
These are all important disclaimers. I am not a doctor (though I'd like to be), I'm just comparing symptoms to people I know who have similar symptoms and have been through the ENTIRE BATTERY of psychiatric tests for bipolar I/bipolar II, ADD, etc.

While I think you're correct about many societies here, on this side of the Atlantic we've come full-circle--we're in the "backlash to the backlash" stages in terms of psychotherapy and psycho-pharmacology. Where in the 90s every child who was from a "bad home" who had behavior problems was instantly labelled ADD and put on ritalin from age 5 on up [switched at puberty to adderall, of course), now there's a whole lot of scepticism over here about psychiatric treatments and being "labelled" with a mental illness (the Dr. Philification of America) and I think people with real problems are needlessly suffering.

Of course, misdiagnosis/overdiagnoses is/are a danger, but I think it's a WHOLE LOT MORE IRRESPONSIBLE to trivialize anyone's psychologically uncomfortable symptoms or experiences. I would rather err on the side of caution, knowing how the failure to treat serious mental illness tends to accelerate its effects, and recommend checking in with a doctor or psychiatrist on an internet forum. People need to realize that should they be properly diagnosed, they fucking DESERVE TO FEEL BETTER IF THEY CAN.

I feel quite glad that my parents took an extremely anti-psychiatric line in my childhood when my behaviour was ridiculously bad... And also I found psychotherapy to be probably the worst possible thing, it served to amplify rather than address my issues!

Mr. Tea
19-10-2007, 03:43 PM
(who hasn't an elderly relative to whom this hasn't happened?)
Me, for one. Bizarre as it may sound to you, not everyone in our society - pathalogically self-disavowedly psycho-kapitalistically racist as it is - is an absolute cunt.


That said, if I were living in Britain, and it were a psycho-socially civilized society, I would not hesitate to have the Vims of that world summarily 'sectioned' ... :cool:
Which raises the question: are you still a fascist if you've convinced yourself the people you wish to treat fascistically are themselves 'fascists'? Would you define 'irony' as "a bit like coppery or silvery, but harder and greyer"?

Mr. Tea
19-10-2007, 03:45 PM
This was my actual reaction to mixed_biscuits, but I decided being self-deprecating would work better here.

Is there anything that scares the "normals" more than someone who isn't afraid to admit that they have been through hellish psychological problems? Nope. I'm used to it now. Usually if you throw them a bone (looks at HMTL) they go away and leave you alone.

Replace scares with bores and admit with bang on about at great length and you're pretty much there.

nomadologist
19-10-2007, 03:50 PM
Replace scares with bores and admit with bang on about at great length and you're pretty much there.

:rolleyes:

I am honored to bore you, Mr. Tea.

Your tepid [and often mal-informed] views on just about everything are hardly enthralling, hon.

nomadologist
19-10-2007, 03:52 PM
Replace scares with bores and admit with bang on about at great length and you're pretty much there.

When I read your posts, I see a huge black hole of aesthetic non-existence, as if you have no real interests or values. That typical 'centrist' who only believes that "the truth is in the middle" in the most rhetorically bankrupt fashion imaginable.

Mr. Tea
19-10-2007, 03:56 PM
Yup, that's right, you're the only one with views on anything.

nomadologist
19-10-2007, 03:59 PM
I feel quite glad that my parents took an extremely anti-psychiatric line in my childhood when my behaviour was ridiculously bad... And also I found psychotherapy to be probably the worst possible thing, it served to amplify rather than address my issues!

Yeah, this happens. I call them "Park Avenue" shrinks. They spend so much time treating those who can best afford it but [often] need it least, that they become obvious racketeers. I can't say I blame them.

nomadologist
19-10-2007, 03:59 PM
Yup, that's right, you're the only one with views on anything.

Yup, that's what I said, isn't it?

tht
19-10-2007, 04:07 PM
I feel quite glad that my parents took an extremely anti-psychiatric line in my childhood when my behaviour was ridiculously bad

there was an article on the daily mail website a few days ago where some frigid ex au-pair recounted how a child smeared feces (shit) all over the bathroom and her employer saw this as indicative of creativity

good shit

nomadologist
19-10-2007, 04:11 PM
there was an article on the daily mail website a few days ago where some frigid ex au-pair recounted how a child smeared feces (shit) all over the bathroom and her employer saw this as indicative of creativity

good shit

ha this is exactly the problem. too many of these types exist and they ruin peoples' perception of the psychiatric profession.

bassnation
19-10-2007, 04:12 PM
there was an article on the daily mail website a few days ago where some frigid ex au-pair recounted how a child smeared feces (shit) all over the bathroom and her employer saw this as indicative of creativity

good shit

could have been a dirty protest against the parents suffocatingly middle class aspirations.

gek-opel
19-10-2007, 04:13 PM
there was an article on the daily mail website a few days ago where some frigid ex au-pair recounted how a child smeared feces (shit) all over the bathroom and her employer saw this as indicative of creativity

good shit

I did that a few times apparently (as a young child) and not just in the bathroom!

nomadologist
19-10-2007, 04:17 PM
guess it depends on how old you were, how potentially pathological it was. a lot of times, smarter children are just better manipulators. they know what to do to get attention.

one of my uncle's daughters growled "kill the parents" at him when she got in trouble for something at around 3-years-old. i couldn't help but laugh.

tht
19-10-2007, 04:20 PM
hypothetical infantile fecal smearers

stravinsky
eminem
lacan
peaches geldof
beria
jesus
john lydon

gek-opel
19-10-2007, 04:24 PM
hahaha...

nomadologist
19-10-2007, 04:27 PM
hypothetical infantile fecal smearers

stravinsky
eminem
lacan
peaches geldof
beria
jesus
john lydon

john lydon probably still does it

ever see that reality show he was on in australia or something? hilarious

swears
19-10-2007, 04:28 PM
Piero Manzoni, for sure.

nomadologist
19-10-2007, 04:33 PM
Vito Acconci

hundredmillionlifetimes
19-10-2007, 05:11 PM
Yeah, this happens. I call them "Park Avenue" shrinks. They spend so much time treating those who can best afford it but [often] need it least, that they become obvious racketeers. I can't say I blame them.

http://blog.pennlive.com/thrive/large_melfi.jpg

"I throw down all my bones, and you offer me a hanky?"

hundredmillionlifetimes
19-10-2007, 05:17 PM
hypothetical infantile fecal smearers

stravinsky
eminem
lacan
peaches geldof
beria
jesus
john lydon

And these chaps ... 'political shit'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/images/_46095_dirty_protest.jpg

boombox
19-10-2007, 05:39 PM
a mountain of pulverized quick-sand

*repeatedly fails to make quick-sand into a mountain*

nomadologist
19-10-2007, 05:44 PM
http://blog.pennlive.com/thrive/large_melfi.jpg

"I throw down all my bones, and you offer me a hanky?"

hehe

fav sopranos quote:

dr. melfi's husband to her--"Some day, you're going to get past psychoanalysis, with all its cheesy moral relativism, and you're going to get to good and evil. And he is evil."

hundredmillionlifetimes
20-10-2007, 12:53 AM
hehe

fav sopranos quote:

dr. melfi's husband to her--"Some day, you're going to get past psychoanalysis, with all its cheesy moral relativism, and you're going to get to good and evil. And he is evil."

And isn't this the ultimate expression of the decline of 'symbolic efficiency' in a globally reflexivized and mediatized society: the impotence of interpretation (and it took Melfi seven years to reach this despairing conclusion!), and a recourse to a pre-reflexive underlying substantial state which eludes our grasp and is instead irrationally attributed to some brute cause - one's (blind) Nature or supernatural 'evil' itself. So the more that everything today is reflexivized, is reduced to a matter of relativistic 'opinion' and self-rationalization, the more the temptation to, the implicit reference to some inscrutable nature or evil that pervades daily discourse, even the most otherwise rational analysis. Even Tony Soprano is impervious to treatment precisely because he has already rationalized his symptoms in pop-psychoanalytic terms, so leaving his symptoms "intact in the immediacy of their idiotic jouissance."


In this sense Tony's reflexivization and resulting naked , non-sublimated baseball-bat approach to social reality is analogous to that of the skinhead that Zizek describes: "What happens in psychoanalytic treatment is strictly homologous to the response of neo-Nazi skinhead who, when really pressed for the reasons for his violence, suddenly starts to talk like social workers, sociologists and social psychologists, quoting diminished social mobility, rising insecurity, the disintegration of paternal authority, the lack of maternal love in his early childhood — the unity of practice and its inherent ideological legitimization disintegrates into raw violence and its impotent, inefficient interpretation ... a violence one is tempted to call Id-Evil, a violence grounded in no utilitarian or ideological reasons. What we encounter here is indeed Id-Evil, i.e., the Evil structured and motivated by the most elementary imbalance in the relationship between the Ego and jouissance, by the tension between pleasure and the foreign body of jouissance in the very heart of it. Id-Evil thus stages the most elementary "short-circuit" in the relationship of the subject to the primordially missing object-cause of his desire."

swears
20-10-2007, 01:28 AM
swears says:
alright

mark says:
hiya

swears says:
http://www.dissensus.com/showthread.php?t=6626&page=8
check out the last post, at the bottom

mark says:
just reading it

mark says:
pfft, had to fucking unpack that

swears says:
lol

mark says:
yeah, obviously he is psychologizing evil

swears says:
which is bad cuz?

mark says:
he thinks that the methods of interpreting a persons violent actions in this day and age are inefficient

swears says:
aren't they?

mark says:
so people want to reduce it to good and evil

swears says:
and?

mark says:
and he's saying that it is actually evil

swears says:
what is?

mark says:
but its not grounded in some transcendent reality

mark says:
we just need better methods of interpreting it

mark says:
that's what i got

swears says:
ok...

mark says:
why did you send me that anyway?

swears says:
just thought you might find it interesting

mark says:
the guy who wrote it was obviously a tit

swears says:
uh ok

swears says:
why?

mark says:
well, it was full of techincal terms

swears says:
so?

mark says:
why would a person use such terms in a public forum

swears says:
why do you think?

mark says:
so he can score clever points with girls
mark says:

mark says:
LOL

swears says:
hahahaha

mark says:
he had a good point though

swears says:
i'm gonna post this chat on the forum

swears says:
see what everybody thinks

swears says:
that ok?

mark says:
whatevs

mark says:
and hes saying that there is actually evil

swears says:
and there isn't???

mark says:
what do you think, mate?

swears says:
fuck knows

hundredmillionlifetimes
20-10-2007, 01:53 AM
LOL. BTW, which one of you was the analyst and which the 'hysterical subject' (the analysand, demanding answers from a posited Subject Supposed To Know), or did the 'fuck knows' denouement suggest or further confirm your discursive androgyny and fatalistic interpretosis? Leading you to project a supernatural ('evil') excape valve on to an otherwise materialist interpretaion [the immanence of desire ] ...

tht
20-10-2007, 02:32 AM
fucks sake swears i told you to replace the name just c&p in notepad you thick twat

hundredmillionlifetimes
20-10-2007, 02:47 AM
fucks sake swears i told you to replace the name just c&p in notepad you thick twat

Oct 20, 2007 (Dissensus API): Exclusive - tht revealed as Tony Soprano!

Eric
20-10-2007, 03:01 AM
Yup, that's right, you're the only one with views on anything.

No, just the only one with views that result from a correct attitude ...

nomadologist
20-10-2007, 04:52 AM
And isn't this the ultimate expression of the decline of 'symbolic efficiency' in a globally reflexivized and mediatized society: the impotence of interpretation (and it took Melfi seven years to reach this despairing conclusion!), and a recourse to a pre-reflexive underlying substantial state which eludes our grasp and is instead irrationally attributed to some brute cause - one's (blind) Nature or supernatural 'evil' itself. So the more that everything today is reflexivized, is reduced to a matter of relativistic 'opinion' and self-rationalization, the more the temptation to, the implicit reference to some inscrutable nature or evil that pervades daily discourse, even the most otherwise rational analysis. Even Tony Soprano is impervious to treatment precisely because he has already rationalized his symptoms in pop-psychoanalytic terms, so leaving his symptoms "intact in the immediacy of their idiotic jouissance."


Yes. Though I still have a soft spot for Dr. M--the way she manipulated her rape to lay the guilt trip on BOTH her on-again-off-again husband/ex AND her son was priceless. Television at its zenith.

Also I really liked that car saleswoman goomah, when Tony has that "profound" moment when he inadvertantly hears from Carmela that she's committed suicide...

nomadologist
20-10-2007, 04:53 AM
No, just the only one with views that result from a correct attitude ...

Oh please. It's the goddamned internet. People are going to have disagreements, and not get along sometimes. BFD.

Trust me I'm not losing sleep over it.

P.S. I may be a narcissist, and I will readily admit it, but don't try to pin self-righteousness on me. If it sounded that way, it was only because after taking punches from Mr. Tea for months, I lost patience with it. I decided I'd let it all out there, if we were going to play like that.

nomadologist
20-10-2007, 05:03 AM
HA wait I never thought about TS and JM this way--the analyst and the analysand, both racketeers.

This whole thread "derailment" was worth it just for that I think.

nomadologist
20-10-2007, 05:08 AM
swears says:
alright

mark says:
hiya
...
mark says:
what do you think, mate?

swears says:
fuck knows

A little Lacan never hurt anyone...Swears you might like to read selected Lacan like Ecrits. You never give yourself enough credit. You're a pretty smart kid--deal with it!

swears
20-10-2007, 02:54 PM
I think I need to get a proper grasp on the basics of classical and enlightenment philosophy before I can really have any proper understanding of all this structuralist/post-structuralist business. Learning to walk before you can run and all that. I'm still trying to get my head around some of Nietzsche's ideas.

tht
20-10-2007, 04:45 PM
how true, swears' apologias for intellectual inadequacy never really cut it do they? seems cleverer than his philosopher friend anyway

tht
20-10-2007, 05:18 PM
the ending of the jennifer melfi subplot was awful, like the closeups of the forensic psychiatry paper and her reaction shots, especially since it didn't need narrative resolution at all

the whole thing could have terminated on the antepenultimate show and would scarcely have irritated the nudnik fans any more than the actual conclusion did

nomadologist
20-10-2007, 08:55 PM
I think I need to get a proper grasp on the basics of classical and enlightenment philosophy before I can really have any proper understanding of all this structuralist/post-structuralist business. Learning to walk before you can run and all that. I'm still trying to get my head around some of Nietzsche's ideas.

hmm. maybe, maybe not. at any rate Nietzsche is probably one of the most flagrantly and grossly misread philosophers out there, really hard to pin down in some places. i am basing this mostly on heidegger's authority, of course.

you could start like this:

heraclitus=>plato=>aristotle=>leibniz=>descartes=>kant=>nietzsche=>heidegger

the rest is easy

nomadologist
20-10-2007, 08:58 PM
the ending of the jennifer melfi subplot was awful, like the closeups of the forensic psychiatry paper and her reaction shots, especially since it didn't need narrative resolution at all

the whole thing could have terminated on the antepenultimate show and would scarcely have irritated the nudnik fans any more than the actual conclusion did

yeah, the last season is pretty dissatisfying in many ways. so many film "experts" agreed that the silence just before the end ofthe last episode was a clear and classically "formalist" filmic device indicating that tony would die directly thereafter. the creator claims he didn't mean for that to come across at all. which kind of ruins the entire season for me.

gek-opel
20-10-2007, 10:42 PM
hmm. maybe, maybe not. at any rate Nietzsche is probably one of the most flagrantly and grossly misread philosophers out there, really hard to pin down in some places. i am basing this mostly on heidegger's authority, of course.

you could start like this:

heraclitus=>plato=>aristotle=>leibniz=>descartes=>kant=>nietzsche=>heidegger

the rest is easy

Don't forget Hegel.

hundredmillionlifetimes
21-10-2007, 12:44 AM
HA wait I never thought about TS and JM this way--the analyst and the analysand, both racketeers.

This whole thread "derailment" was worth it just for that I think.

Not a thread derailment at all, really, all things considered. [Actually, I found this (http://blog.pennlive.com/thrive/2007/06/whats_up_with_dr_melfi.html)indignant reaction by America's actual psychoanalytic chattering classes, including even the American Psychoanalytic Association, to the identity of Melfi's 'star patient' being exposed at a dinner party, superbly - and depressingly - revealing of just the extent to which the mainstream pseudo-psychobabble industry is both a racket and a bourgeois perversion].


yeah, the last season is pretty dissatisfying in many ways. so many film "experts" agreed that the silence just before the end of the last episode was a clear and classically "formalist" filmic device indicating that tony would die directly thereafter. the creator claims he didn't mean for that to come across at all. which kind of ruins the entire season for me.

That's certainly suggested itself, though not unambiguously. It's also the 'classically formalist device' of something else entirely: the self-satisfied epiphany, the reassertion of the patriarchal status quo, the capitalist-realist this-is-the-way-things-are, classically-cliched quotidian pleasures of the well-here-we-all-are united family unit with the patriarch in ecstatic-silent anticipation of the imminent arrival of his daughter. Oedipal reproductive futurism at its purest. In this sense, the ending - discounting for the why-aren't they-talking/arguing//blabbering-as-usual anxiety - is no different to the average episode of that immortal family unit, The Simpsons.


you could start like this:

heraclitus=>plato=>aristotle=>leibniz=>descartes=>kant=>nietzsche=>heidegger

Very, um, pedagogically [classical linear-chrono narrative] structuralist :cool:

Now the thread's derailed.

nomadologist
21-10-2007, 02:17 AM
Don't forget Hegel.

If I'd added Hegel, I would've had to end with Zizek. I thought about putting Bergson in there so I could put Deleuze at the end.

My real canons are more like microcanons:

freud=>bataille<=lacan=>irigaray<=cixous

saussure<=baudrillard=>virilio

heidegger<=derrida=>agamben

nomadologist
21-10-2007, 02:23 AM
Very, um, pedagogically [classical linear-chrono narrative] structuralist :cool:

Now the thread's derailed.

See--I'm not so far gone that I don't remember what they learned me up at my school.

Now all we need is for someone to post a really huge bandwith-hogging picture file with something obscene or cutesy and some colorful CAPITAL LETTERS IN BOLD

tht
21-10-2007, 02:42 AM
this is an unfortunate casualty as these things go too
i seem to have instigated a dozen or so posts about shit and there was no going back from there
sorry jaie :x

dssdnt
21-10-2007, 08:32 AM
Very, um, pedagogically [classical linear-chrono narrative] structuralist :cool:
Not stricly chronological, considering that Decartes writes before Leibniz, surprising error there. Certainly not pedagogical, as no one's teaching anything, and sure as hell not structuralist, under any comprehension of the term. Not to mention, if you had even the least acquaintance with the writings of Nietzsche or Heidegger, you'd know that the notion of a linear history of philosophy was destroyed long ago.

hundredmillionlifetimes
21-10-2007, 10:20 AM
Not stricly chronological, considering that Decartes writes before Leibniz, surprising error there.

Thank you for that crucial clarification, O Wise One. We will now shamefully retire to the back of the class until we chronologically rectify the error of our ways.


Certainly not pedagogical, as no one's teaching anything,

Specifying, selecting a specific approach to learning/beginning-to-learn/study a subject is a pedagogical strategy, Professor von Pedant.


and sure as hell not structuralist, under any comprehension of the term.

Not under any comprehension of the term, under many, Professor of Sure-As-Hell Certainty.


Not to mention, if you had even the least acquaintance with the writings of Nietzsche or Heidegger, you'd know that the notion of a linear history of philosophy was destroyed long ago.

Which wasn't, strangely enough, the point I was making [a trivial one, as I'm also sure Nomad is also well aware], Oh Noble Professor, but non-linear, arborescent, non-academic, hypertextual modes can be much more effective, seemingly, and sometimes actually are, apparently.

[The original remark was also made entirely in jest, but perhaps the smiley quota was insufficient for your exacting requirements :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: ]

dssdnt
21-10-2007, 11:12 AM
Thank you for that crucial clarification, O Wise One. We will now shamefully retire to the back of the class until we chronologically rectify the error of our ways.



Specifying, selecting a specific approach to learning/beginning-to-learn/study a subject is a pedagogical strategy, Professor von Pedant.



Not under any comprehension of the term, under many, Professor of Sure-As-Hell Certainty.



Which wasn't, strangely enough, the point I was making [a trivial one, as I'm also sure Nomad is also well aware], Oh Noble Professor, but non-linear, arborescent, non-academic, hypertextual modes can be much more effective, seemingly, and sometimes actually are, apparently.

[The original remark was also made entirely in jest, but perhaps the smiley quota was insufficient for your exacting requirements :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: ]
Hardly a surprise that you would answer with sarcasm. Hypertextual modes are effective for that approach, too.

Dial
21-10-2007, 02:20 PM
heraclitus=>plato=>aristotle=>leibniz=>descartes=>kant=>nietzsche=>heidegger

Theres a little bit of benign posturing going on with this list don ya think. Who is really going to read the canon without real pressure and support, not to mention aptitude. Moreover Neitzsche's own railing against attempts at mastery are particularly germane here.

Here too...


Originally Posted by swears View Post
I think I need to get a proper grasp on the basics of classical and enlightenment philosophy before I can really have any proper understanding of all this structuralist/post-structuralist business. Learning to walk before you can run and all that. I'm still trying to get my head around some of Nietzsche's ideas.

To which one can only say why? why must you try to grind yourself into some ideal position of control and knowing. It doesn't exist. Chances are you'll fill your head with constructs that have no ground/purchase in your own lived reality. In short nothing but ill vapors to make you queasy. Or worse ecstatic.

Better to grasp one good rhythm than a thousand 'canons'. Then extrapolate, apply.

Myself I'd go for one of the micro canons Nomadologist listed. The one with the best fun/accessibility yield would have to be Sassure, > Baudrillard,> Virillio. And whatever you do, be a little afraid, but not too afraid, of secondary texts, so as to unmess your head now and then, Swears.

And last but not least a little bit of intent reading is way better than its converse. Unless it's Derrida's Spurs, or some such like, in which case just swim away at it. Sense will happen along the way.

Of course, I stand corrected, and sort of (very sort of) envious if you do have the next two or three or four years to devote to that canon.

I think it would just make you fucking miserable, myself. Ha.

And just for the record, I enjoy the theorizing in this thread and elsewhere.

nomadologist
21-10-2007, 03:23 PM
Not stricly chronological, considering that Decartes writes before Leibniz, surprising error there. Certainly not pedagogical, as no one's teaching anything, and sure as hell not structuralist, under any comprehension of the term. Not to mention, if you had even the least acquaintance with the writings of Nietzsche or Heidegger, you'd know that the notion of a linear history of philosophy was destroyed long ago.

I was actually making fun of Heidegger. Be literal if you want to be. I won't say that Leibniz before Descartes was intentional, but think about that for a minute in light of Heideggerian "cosmology"?

I have ample 'acquaintance' with the writings of everyone I listed.

Heidegger's "history" is FASCISTICALLY linear, as a matter of fact. His classicism-cum-ontology was eventually swallowed up by the fucking Nazis, that's how LINEAR in his thinking Heidegger was. WTF are you talking about?

It's not until post-structuralism that we see "linear" history slowly fall apart.

nomadologist
21-10-2007, 03:32 PM
Thank you for that crucial clarification, O Wise One. We will now shamefully retire to the back of the class until we chronologically rectify the error of our ways.


you just know dssnt went and actually LOOKED UP when leibniz and descartes were writing.

no doubt on wikipedia.

pffff.

nomadologist
21-10-2007, 03:33 PM
Theres a little bit of benign posturing going on with this list don ya think. Who is really going to read the canon without real pressure and support, not to mention aptitude. Moreover Neitzsche's own railing against attempts at mastery are particularly germane here.


pssst Dial--I wasn't serious about this. it was a joke.

dssdnt
21-10-2007, 05:06 PM
you just know dssnt went and actually LOOKED UP when leibniz and descartes were writing.

no doubt on wikipedia.

pffff.
Bizarre but telling to suggest that the historical chronology of Descartes and Leibniz needs 'looking up' - by anyone. The chronology/philosophical relations from Leibniz to Christian Wolff to Kant is hardly an obscure period in the history of philosophy. To confuse Descartes' work/chronology with Leibniz is just ... odd (no matter what model of 'history' or 'textuality' you prefer).

dssdnt
21-10-2007, 05:22 PM
I was actually making fun of Heidegger. Be literal if you want to be. I won't say that Leibniz before Descartes was intentional, but think about that for a minute in light of Heideggerian "cosmology"?

I have ample 'acquaintance' with the writings of everyone I listed.

Heidegger's "history" is FASCISTICALLY linear, as a matter of fact. His classicism-cum-ontology was eventually swollowed up by the fucking Nazis, that's how LINEAR in his thinking Heidegger was. WTF are you talking about?

It's not until post-structuralism that we see "linear" history slowly fall apart.
Heidegger's thought was not "eventually swallowed up by the Nazis," he openly supported them from at least '33 onwards. There is his nasty, nasty rector's speech in favor of Hitler's regime, and plenty of other evidence, for starters. Or his refusal publicly to apologize. Or his letters later in life, which reveal a duplicitous character still unable to take responsibility for his 'error.' This is all well known to everyone who bothers to learn about it. However, the critique of historical linearity was well underway from many quarters before post-structuralism delivered more popular (though very valuable) versions of it - and much of that critique of linearity drew on the thought of Nietzsche and Heidegger. This isn't a particularly controversial point.

nomadologist
21-10-2007, 06:03 PM
Heidegger's thought was not "eventually swallowed up by the Nazis," he openly supported them from at least '33 onwards. There is his nasty, nasty rector's speech in favor of Hitler's regime, and plenty of other evidence, for starters. Or his refusal publicly to apologize. Or his letters later in life, which reveal a duplicitous character still unable to take responsibility for his 'error.' This is all well known to everyone who bothers to learn about it. However, the critique of historical linearity was well underway from many quarters before post-structuralism delivered more popular (though very valuable) versions of it - and much of that critique of linearity drew on the thought of Nietzsche and Heidegger. This isn't a particularly controversial point.

Of course, the extent to which Heidegger "sympathized" with the Nazis from "at least '33" onwards is the subject of much debate, as you may realize.

"well underway", eh? I would say that until the post-structuralists, people like Heidegger were essentially in league with MODERNISTS, and while post-modernism and post-structuralism developed alongside modernism in some key ways, it wasn't until Lyotard that you can really say anyone talked about "linearity" or "narratives" in the way we have been.

nomadologist
21-10-2007, 06:05 PM
Bizarre but telling to suggest that the historical chronology of Descartes and Leibniz needs 'looking up' - by anyone. The chronology/philosophical relations from Leibniz to Christian Wolff to Kant is hardly an obscure period in the history of philosophy. To confuse Descartes' work/chronology with Leibniz is just ... odd (no matter what model of 'history' or 'textuality' you prefer).

What is so weird about it? You say these things, but you don't substantiate them at all.

Maybe you spend too much time reading Leibniz and Descartes...

nomadologist
21-10-2007, 06:07 PM
ever read Safranski's Heidegger bio?

P.S. I just looked up Leibniz and Descartes major publication dates--both are considered preeminent 17th century rationalists, as I thought. There's a whopping difference of about 30-40 years between their best known works. A truly significant amount of time during the Enlightenment, thanks so much for being a stickler there.

hundredmillionlifetimes
21-10-2007, 06:28 PM
Bizarre but telling to suggest that the historical chronology of Descartes and Leibniz needs 'looking up' - by anyone

Yeah, such hard-wired knowledge has recently been isolated by molecular biologists and geneticists in the 150 millionth coded gene sequence TAG, AGT, GTA, in chromosone 1, it being bizarrely recessive among a majority of those who have studied philosophy, and yet dominant in the minority with an equally bizarre aversion to sarcasm and an obsessive-compulsive need to turn discussion threads into train wrecks

nomadologist
21-10-2007, 06:33 PM
*chuckle*

I'm proud I didn't know Descartes' fucking b-day.

To think that this started because Swears posted an IM session... This is turning into a passage from a shitty Danielewski novel.

nomadologist
21-10-2007, 06:43 PM
*waits for Tate to log on and tell dssdnt that it was in fact 1934, not 1933, when Heidegger first expressed his Nazi-sympathies in public, and to mock my flagrant disregard for grammar and capitalization*

hundredmillionlifetimes
21-10-2007, 07:03 PM
It's not until post-structuralism that we see "linear" history slowly fall apart.

And now that we've dischronically moved into post--post-structuralism, we are only permitted to reconsider and revisit pre-structuralism, structuralism, and post-structuralism only when we correctly recall the sequence in which Heidegger blew out all of his cake candles on his 50th birthday.

Dial
22-10-2007, 02:02 PM
pssst Dial--I wasn't serious about this. it was a joke.

Oh sure, hence the 'benign' ;) but it wouldn't hurt to give Swears some serious suggestions if the poor man really feels he has to work his way through the history of philosophy.

Such as this...

http://www.amazon.com/Postmodern-Turn-Steven-Best/dp/1572302216/ref=sr_1_4/105-4111254-3373256?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193057385&sr=1-4

I expect that, like its predecessor, the writing will be somewhat stodgier than its subjects, yet, nonetheless, engaged and clear.

And here's a link to the Preface:

http://www.uta.edu/huma/illuminations/best8.htm

hundredmillionlifetimes
23-10-2007, 09:07 AM
I think I need to get a proper grasp on the basics of classical and enlightenment philosophy before I can really have any proper understanding of all this structuralist/post-structuralist business. Learning to walk before you can run and all that. I'm still trying to get my head around some of Nietzsche's ideas.

So ... instead, in the meantime, continue to ridicule it?


but it wouldn't hurt to give Swears some serious suggestions if the poor man really feels he has to work his way through the history of philosophy.

The Sopranos and Philosophy, Harry Potter and Philosophy, The Beatles and Philosophy, The Simpsons and Philosophy, Seinfeld and Philosophy, Star Wars and Philosophy, and The Matrix and Philosophy, and many more [all 2001-2007]. Or perhaps, "Monty Python and Philosophy: Nudge Nudge, Think Think!", to assist the "poor man" on his way to enlightenment: (http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=mlhxjx9y84d00ct2jxthph91zm9dcdtz)



An emblematic approach can be found in Gary L. Hardcastle's article "Themes in Contemporary Analytical Philosophy as Reflected in the Work of Monty Python," a chapter in Monty Python and Philosophy: Nudge Nudge, Think Think!, a 2006 book in the Open Court series. Hardcastle, an assistant professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, unpacks the 20th-century epistemological debate between verificationism (logical positivists like M. Schlick, R. Carnap, and A.J. Ayer), and semantic holism (W.V. Quine, Thomas Kuhn, and the later Wittgenstein) by using the famous Python parrot sketch and the Black Knight dismemberment fight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. In the parrot sketch, John Cleese (Mr. Praline) attempts to return a dead parrot to the pet store where he purchased it, and Michael Palin (the shopkeeper) uses an infuriating casuistry to deny the deceased state of the parrot. Hardcastle has to do a fair amount of real philosophy before we can appreciate this point, and when he analyzes the sketch, it actually sheds some light on the philosophical debate.

Hardcastle explains that "Mr. Praline, the man attempting to return the parrot, is our verificationist, as is evidenced by his attempt to verify the death of the parrot by reference to experience, such as seeing that it's motionless, its falling to the ground when sent aloft, its being nailed to its perch, and so on. The shopkeeper is our philosophically more sophisticated holist. He knows that maintaining the truth of other statements, concerning for example the bird's strength and its affection for the fjords, will allow him to maintain that the parrot is alive."

Notice that the shopkeeper is like the famous Black Knight from Holy Grail, who, despite having his limbs successively chopped off, continues to define himself as the victor in his battle with King Arthur. The holist shopkeeper need never accept that the parrot is dead, if he keeps explaining the observation of its motionless state by appeal to increasingly elaborate theories.

Maybe like this thread, not dead, alive at the zero level ...