"Mental" Illness: The Future of Treatment

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Moderator: MagsJ

Re: "Mental" Illness: The Future of Treatment

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu May 03, 2018 11:14 pm

Meno_ wrote:True certain extent , however , humane treatments have been on an upswing,
Milder methods still carry on the pathologizing of individual emotional responses that are normal.

The blame for mental illness on society has only limited use,and under limited circumstances.
I would focus differently and disagree strongly. The vast majority of psychopharmaceutical suppression of emotions is pathological, but is unfortunately widespread.

Its difficult to believe nowadays, that witchcraft, demonic possession, electro and insulin shock , psycho surgeries , were other notions/uses were employed just a few years ago.
Current full disclosure research shows almost no help from psychotropics but significant side effects at high rates. It is a farce. I recommend again Lost Connections.
Karpel Tunnel
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: "Mental" Illness: The Future of Treatment

Postby Meno_ » Thu May 03, 2018 11:37 pm

Karpal,

I do agree with You , however, symptom supression is not primarily pharmaceutical profit related , but the result of lack of success with psychoanalysis. Although sadly. It does play into it.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3161
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: "Mental" Illness: The Future of Treatment

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri May 04, 2018 9:41 am

Meno_ wrote:Karpal,

I do agree with You , however, symptom supression is not primarily pharmaceutical profit related , but the result of lack of success with psychoanalysis. Although sadly. It does play into it.
Psychoanalysis, that is the Freudian approach to psychotherapy, had many limitations. Freud had a lot of insights that have turned out to be true and others that did not, but his approach to the client analyst relation was pretty stiff, distant, mental and not dynamic. A lot of interesting approaches have arisen since his death and most of them outside pyschoanalysis.

It pays to view normal emotional reactions as problems, to individualize the reactions rather than look at things at broader levels: pain related to past traumas, unhealthy extrinsic values, meaningless stressful work, disconnect from nature, social isolation and more. Big Pharma and psychiatry have a vested financial interest in making us think we should have less emotions and that emotional pain has to do with us being broken chemical machines. And they have incredible media power and have brainwashed the public to believe their BS. Now I do not view this as a simple conspiracy. Of course many of the players think they are doing good, and the paradigms that drive them are wider spread and not of their creation. But they make money off it. Lost Connections gives a good overview of what is really causing most of the problems treated by psychotropics and it gives nice references to research supporting both a fundamental critique of Pharma approaches to emotional health and supporting other ways to solve these issues.
Karpel Tunnel
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: "Mental" Illness: The Future of Treatment

Postby Meno_ » Fri May 04, 2018 8:26 pm

Ok. Then call it analysis. The point made is that without being able to analyze what is bugging a patient, in terms of his awareness of it, there is no possibility of improving his position.

The putative acknowledgement of figuring it out, will have little little or no effect on affect.

It is because of this that the symptoms are uneffected
It's not the question of the quality of the subconscious, but the quantifiable , measurable change to establish status,
or, equalization between what formerly was described as the passions and reason.

Qualification of symptomalogy, , does little to move the fulcrum of the balance tonward qualifying different modes of interpreting results, so, for instance, moving the differential diagnosis from autistic to schyzotypal characteristics on the basis of some current changes of classification, will not change the dynamic that will establish more observable symptomalogy.

Even if it is to be claimed that the current methodology implicates a better concurrency with balanced relative stasis, a primary starting point can not prevail within observable symptomalogy.

Then, insight will relieve some symptoms, and these unrelieved ,will still need to be extemporeniously managed.This is the primary reason for pharm. management, and although it can be claimed that it would be too costly to extend analysis to a long term , the erroneous conclusions which insight and analysis are based on, are a function of affordability. , and may be misconstrued, if the claim made is that psychotropic drugs are merely a money making device ,
To deny the fact that it is society that is maladjiated to an extent , due to using drugs as a money making device, is too far a stretch, at leastndoe now.
..

The presumption is very great to make such an assessment, at least for now

On the other hand, a return to pure and unadulterated economically driven social system, compounded with sharp increase in the techno-regulated social system world wide, may tip the odds in favor of a drug regulated system of social control. But even then, a biotechnocal product may be one of necessity, with a predicted tramsvaluation to norms not heretofore imaginable may be only by ditiroats2 like Huxley and Nietzsche


The point is, profits are secondarily derived from necessary adjustments of social control, due to overpopulation and changing demographocs.

The profit angle is the conditional conditional aspect of the present , and probably the future world wide economic system


But upon re reading this kind of duplicates my last post, however with more detail.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3161
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: "Mental" Illness: The Future of Treatment

Postby WendyDarling » Sat May 05, 2018 3:03 pm

After 15 years of trial and error, the psychiatric pharmaceuticals I am currently taking maintain my mental stability without side effects. The problem with a lot of psychiatric drugs is that the consumers do not take responsibility for their use of the drugs. The biggest problems with prescription meds for psychiatric usage is 1) the recipients do not take their meds as prescribed 2) MI individuals do not accurately evaluate their meds and ask for replacement options when the meds are causing side effects or are not beneficial enough. Spending years evaluating medicine after medicine is exhausting, but has to be done in order to receive the most effective prescription treatments. Perhaps most who are ill do not have the wherewithal to properly evaluate their situations due to a combination of 1) and 2) above. A large portion of MI treatment is self-responsibility which becomes self-advocacy.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 6914
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: "Mental" Illness: The Future of Treatment

Postby Meno_ » Sun May 06, 2018 12:32 am

That's what I mean. If it hadn't been for some of the profits reinvested into pharm. research that could not have been feasible before generics cut into the profits, research and development couldn't have produced products fine tuned to tailor Your particular cocktail to suit Your exact needs.

Not that big pharm doesent price gauge, but then there is a growing worldwide industry of production of generic drugs, and they are untouchable from national patents.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3161
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: "Mental" Illness: The Future of Treatment

Postby anand_droog » Tue May 08, 2018 7:10 am

Psychological/psychosomatic disorders are of 2 types:

1) Type 1 (Norepi deficiency); e.g.: low IQ (NLD), Parkinson's, cancers (= neurocontrol failure)

< This causes psychological deficits that are "compensated" by dopamine systems hyperactivity, thus:>

2) Type 2 (Problems linked to excessive Dopamine activity, which overheats and disintegrates the brain (neuropyrosis); e.g.: depression, dementia, Schizophrenia, histrionic disorder, ADHD, tobacco and cocaine addiction etc.)

The etiology of both disease types are explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdhBRSF6fIE&t=317s
User avatar
anand_droog
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: "Mental" Illness: The Future of Treatment

Postby MagsJ » Fri May 11, 2018 7:13 am

Meno_ wrote:That double entendre literally is looking for a rational way out of the quandry, of all the unfortumates', whose insight may not reach that level of inquiry, postulating the theory that insight is at least half way to sanity.

The creativity in terms of trying to figure (spawn)) out those elements giving rise to creating (your terms) non adaptive environments , tend to be successfully understood in terms of that creativity.

That is what appears here by the double entendre.

The other half is where the damaged emotions can ever arise from the depth where things can ever go back to stability.

..a new sense of normality can be reached, but I would say that it would be dependent on damage limitation from the outset.. giving the mind the scope to manoeuvre from the damaging old mindset to a fresh new one, or.. in simpler terms, retraining the brain.

Emergence should be perfection, or.. go back and try again, until a satisfactory standard of being/thinking/doing has been reached.. time, not being a factor in the process, as betterment knows no price.
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17237
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: "Mental" Illness: The Future of Treatment

Postby Meno_ » Thu May 17, 2018 2:55 pm

MagsJ wrote:
Meno_ wrote:That double entendre literally is looking for a rational way out of the quandry, of all the unfortumates', whose insight may not reach that level of inquiry, postulating the theory that insight is at least half way to sanity.

The creativity in terms of trying to figure (spawn)) out those elements giving rise to creating (your terms) non adaptive environments , tend to be successfully understood in terms of that creativity.

That is what appears here by the double entendre.

The other half is where the damaged emotions can ever arise from the depth where things can ever go back to stability.

..a new sense of normality can be reached, but I would say that it would be dependent on damage limitation from the outset.. giving the mind the scope to manoeuvre from the damaging old mindset to a fresh new one, or.. in simpler terms, retraining the brain.

Emergence should be perfection, or.. go back and try again, until a satisfactory standard of being/thinking/doing has been reached.. time, not being a factor in the process, as betterment knows no price.

Magj, I discovered this, perhaps unfinished theme, and I suppose I am the one amiss:


I'd like to add that , the three some: the surveillance of thought processes, which seems to have become the thing Nowedaya,added to behavior modification, is expected to more or less regulate that wild child, the emotions, whereas, as it has been explored elsewhere , the depth of emotional resistance shows a reboot is a lot more involved and prone to failure.

However one would gladly trade in serious cognitive dysfunction for emotional disturbances, I gather. This argument is founded on the premise, that it is a lot easier to find ways out, when the thought processes are still pretty much intact.

And on serious re-reading of Your narrative realized I'm
being redundant and mundane , when You mentioned the 'return to some thing food's was meant as a patterned model

So I modify by saying , that even a nearly a totally disarrayed mind can have glimmers to this primordial ideal
Last edited by Meno_ on Thu May 17, 2018 7:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3161
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: "Mental" Illness: The Future of Treatment

Postby Meno_ » Thu May 17, 2018 3:06 pm

Meno_ wrote:
MagsJ wrote:
Meno_ wrote:That double entendre literally is looking for a rational way out of the quandry, of all the unfortumates', whose insight may not reach that level of inquiry, postulating the theory that insight is at least half way to sanity.

The creativity in terms of trying to figure (spawn)) out those elements giving rise to creating (your terms) non adaptive environments , tend to be successfully understood in terms of that creativity.

That is what appears here by the double entendre.

The other half is where the damaged emotions can ever arise from the depth where things can ever go back to stability.

..a new sense of normality can be reached, but I would say that it would be dependent on damage limitation from the outset.. giving the mind the scope to manoeuvre from the damaging old mindset to a fresh new one, or.. in simpler terms, retraining the brain.

Emergence should be perfection, or.. go back and try again, until a satisfactory standard of being/thinking/doing has been reached.. time, not being a factor in the process, as betterment knows no price.




I see the point, however, the three some: the surveillance of thought processes, which seems to have become the thing Nowedaya,added to behavior modification, is expected to more or less regulate that wild child, the emotions, whereas, as it has been explored elsewhere , the depth of emotional resistance shows a reboot is a lot more involved and prone to failure.

However one would gladly trade in serious cognitive dysfunction for emotional disturbances, I gather. This argument is founded on the premise, that it is a lot easier to find ways out, when the thought processes are still pretty much intact.



I wonder of the success rate of limiting damage, through the dynamics of disordered cognitive function?

Vastly decomposed, with extremely limited insight, most of it has to be infused through lengthy analysis, and that has proven unavailable and unsuccessful.

So neurosis seems the.most likely candidate for coming out of depression, for instance.

Please refer to the previous post, to clarify and equalize the pros and the cons as sign of misalignment between neurotic and psychotic symptoms.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3161
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Previous

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron