mental illness

don’t be afraid and ashamed of mental illness, or your self shortcomings, because in truth, nothing negaitves exist. nothing negative exist.

whether it’s this world or the next, it’s all love and peace

all crazy love and wild peace.

peace and be wild.

love ,yall.

Total bullshit, crazy doesn’t exist!!??

How old are you?

Apparently Jeffrey Dahmer was all crazy love and wild peace…

thinksweet I’m afraid your Ideas are far too open ended, and so I appologise for the rude remarks of those who follow and proceed me.

kingdaddy by saying bullshit as your first word you automatically ignored the possability of truth or even partial truth, this is the same as religious dogmatism in many ways, bear that in mind.

statiktech sarcastic as hel but a very valid point, one that bears answers, I will try not to be full of my ego when I try to bring about resolve in some extent.

in my understanding of the context mental illness is a from of defense mechanism that is, at least to some extent, harmful to the person or those around them.

An example being paranoia is often triggered by betrayal of trust in close friends and family, which makes sense, since if those close to you will try to harm you than it makes sense to keep your guard up.

The problem comes when said defense mechanism grows to the point where you are unable to override it with reason and you essentually seperate yourself from the world because of your fears.

but on a basic level these defense mechanisms are actually good for you, they are designed to insure your survival, but over time and continued triggering they tend to grow and become most troublesome.

One could argue context of genetic or enviromental and chemical causes but I would class that under psychiatry not psychology.

in one context thinksweet is correct, these are on a basic level good for us, however ther are also dangerous when taken beyond a certin point. but then that is purly a psychoanalitical perspective on it.

from a more human perspective on it, one cannot help but feel pain for both those with mental illnesses and those they effect, because these pains could be avoided if they had help earlier on, and so it is simply tragic how many need to suffer before they realize that a person needs help.

As many of these people will be seen as evil they never get the help they need and simply end up causing more suffering to others, which in itself is simply a tragety. but then that is simply an oppinion.

peace.

All sarcasm aside (and this is a rare occurance), I kind of see a flaw in your logic here. Please don’t take this as me attacking your explanation or logic, I just find something curious that you may be able to provide answers for considering you seem rather intelligent and well versed in what you are talking about.

You say that a lot of these mental illnesses are defense mechanisms, which I totally agree with. In some cases these mechanisms are blown out of proportion in a sense, like paranoia, OCD, depression, isolation, not to mention the gang of phobias and manias that affect various people. I can see the role of the defense mechanisms in these things like shutting yourself in to avoid danger or contact with people, or someone with OCD washing their hands every few minutes to protect from germs, or someone with excessive paranoia always wondering if people are out to get them because they want to protect themselves. However, in some cases, like the above mentioned Mr. Dahmer or Ted Bundy, the issue seems more offensive. Im sure, in early stages, they dealt with defense mechanisms such as paranoia, schitzophrenia, obsessions, manias, etc. because they knew something was amiss. But when the killing and raping and games of domination come into play these individuals are no longer protecting themselves or struggling for survival. They are threatening and destroying the defenses and survival of others. My questions for you are: Is there a point where defense mechanisms manifest themselves into an offensive strategy (in a sense that they are no longer seeking defense, they want to make others seek defense)? If so, what is the satisfaction in the offensive if these people are not just “evil”? I see the satisfatction in defense - protection and safety. What about the offensive though? They want, maybe even need, death, pain, dominance, etc. at very gruesome costs. If that’s not “evil”, what is?

In my mind, I think there are two types of cases here:

  1. An individual develops these defense mechanisms that grow in number and severity over a period of time until some kind of breaking point. At this point the individual seeks to cause others the pain that he feels, or seeks to inflict his fears on others to reassure himself that they will not inflict what he fears upon him.

  2. An individual does not develop a defense or general fear or emotion concerning anything (sociopaths). They have an offensive strategy or plan of attack in any situation because they don’t fear consequences and/or feel a need to punish, dominate, or sexually gratify themselves. The strategy of offense grows with their “need”, whatever it may be, until they strike out at others.

Keep in mind this is an opinion, and one way to look at these matters, but do you find any truth to this?

as a simple oppinion that seems very to the point and very accurate, but bear in mind that with the first case mentioned if these defense mechanisms had been dealt with before the breaking point then the offense mechanisms would never have come into play, and though they are conciderably harder to deal with on this level the can still be dealt with. Granted that in itself would be a fate worse than death.

as for the second type, though sociopaths are devoid of such fears, they are often more predictable than many other psycotics and often very rational. such is both useful and hindering, because unlike people who develope defense mechanisms they have rationalized their beliefs and it often makes sense, that being said it can also be unrationalized. this would be where the unpredictable factor is since it can go either way.

As for the context of being evil, wouldn’t any act to benafit oneself at the expense of others be evil, as a landlord sells an apartment building to build condos evicting all residents. As a large corporation buys out a small business to gain a greater market share while in the mean time putting many people out of work.

But then this is also simply my oppinion

peace

from a more human perspective on it, one cannot help but feel pain for both those with mental illnesses and those they effect, because these pains could be avoided if they had help earlier on, and so it is simply tragic how many need to suffer before they realize that a person needs help.

This is probably true in some cases. But is it always true? Do we know enough to prevent all cases of mental illness?

Hmm, I think your choice of words is a little confusing. I don’t think he was talking about preventing mental illness. The best you can hope to do as far as prevention is to just raise and educate a child in his/her developmental stages the best you can. In most cases mental illness is not even discovered until it has already taken shape in that particular individual. They see the symptoms, suspect something is wrong, then seek explanations and treatments from there. The key, as I think onlyhuman was saying, is to recognize when something is wrong and be proactive about seeking treatment before the illness has time to develop into something more dangerous. Treatment may not rid an individual of his mental illness, but can certainly lessen the severity of the illness, hinder it’s progression, and help the affected individual cope. So, in turn, treatment in the earliest possible stages of a mental illness can prevent someone from becoming a threat to himself or society, and can help professionals determine if/when an individual becomes a threat. However, even if the question is “can we treat all mental illnesses” the answer would still be no, in my opinion. I don’t even think it is possible for us to know enough about each and every possible illness to effectively treat everyone. The same way that hospitals still get patients with physical illnesses that baffle doctors and end up dying. I suspect that some mental illnesses are still very much mysteries and there are many people who, even if treated in the early stages of their illness, will never be able to cope with reality or be a functional member of society. That’s why we have homes for people who need constant doses of therapy and medication so they can function at all. This is also why we have establishments to house the criminally insane, because most of the people there are believed to be a threat to themselves and/or others and no treatment can effectively change that. Don’t get me wrong, Im sure there are cases where an individual goes to a treatment facility like that and recieves effective treatment.

In the context of where the discussion is going, I do think that people who have the potential of a psychotic break can be treated to prevent them from becoming a threat. Though, even if the individual learns to cope and manage his episodes, he still has an illness and the potential to break and become a threat no matter what stage his illness is caught in.

So, can we treat all mental illnesses? We can try, and certainly lessen the severity and hinder the development of many illnesses. But, I definitely wouldn’t say that we know how to effectively treat all possible forms. I don’t even think that we can possibly know of all the possible forms of mental illness.

Can we prevent all mental illness? That would have to be a no. Some are genetic or hereditary, how can you prevent something on that level? We can treat it and try to prevent the development of the illness into something more serious, but I’d say even that woudn’t be effective in some cases. We can, however, prevent them from becoming a threat to themselves or society if that potential is recognized. But options for a person in that position would probably be now worse than death anyway.

 Thank you. People who say such things make me smile, because they are         right.

-OKcomp

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=157492

This is a link to a piece of writing I done recently on an fictional pedophile, I try to assess the nature of mental illness, our prejudices towards it, and a general commentary of our inability to understand it, to come to terms with it, as a society.

It might be relevant.

Mental illness is not all bad. I find it shocking that you want to prevent it in entirety.

‘Madness is a neccessary port of call on the voyage to enlightenment.’

I won’t cover everything, because a lot of these further posts are the same crap as the first set, just rehashed. Here we go:

The question of mental illness, I don’t believe, is timeless, but it is certainly in line for one of the more pervasive problems in the thinking world. Many associate genius with insanity, but I question this and regard it as moot. It seems more that insanity opposed genius, but, suffice it say, it is still worthwhile to know your enemy.

thinksweet “don’t be afraid and ashamed of mental illness, or your self shortcomings, because in truth, nothing negaitves exist. nothing negative exist.”

I’m afraid you’re talking semantics. If everything sucked could we say that no good exists? I think if you’re going to start turning everything into a triumph you won’t know where the put your foot in the throes of adversity.

onlyhuman “in my understanding of the context mental illness is a from of defense mechanism that is, at least to some extent, harmful to the person or those around them.”

I fail to see where hallucinating, seeing things like wolves pacing the walls in your room and glaring at you, is a defence mechanism. Perhaps you could make a [mostly erroneous] claim that this person night fear wolves and is trying to protect themselves from them – this being some kind of ward against them – but in urban and suburban areas, wolves are not a commonality. Perhaps it is more that some deep-seated thought construct is responsible for this person seeing wolves, but that is far too lateral a precept to be a defence mechanism.

onlyhuman “An example being paranoia is often triggered by betrayal of trust in close friends and family, which makes sense, since if those close to you will try to harm you than it makes sense to keep your guard up.”

The funny thing about clinical paranoia is that it is generally not set off by and reasonable parallel to the substance of the delusion. Stress generally triggers relapses and the chemical factor kicks in and it tends to operate more as we have covered in my latter deposition.

Paranoid ideations, however, are a different thing… but this is still not clinical paranoia. I will concede that most paranoia seems less than bizarre, but these delusions are not rooted in reality, as is part of the clinical profile for paranoiacs. Better to say that this is triggered by environment but the delusion is not inherent, in its exacerbated form, in the patient’s field of experience.

onlyhuman “The problem comes when said defense mechanism grows to the point where you are unable to override it with reason and you essentually seperate yourself from the world because of your fears.”

Here you are actually on to something. Paranoia approaches melting point when the worry becomes delusional. The real bitch of it, though, is that these worries are incipient paranoia, and wouldn’t have surfaced if not for prodromal schizophrenia, for instance. In a nutshell, these states to not precede the illness.

statiktech “You say that a lot of these mental illnesses are defense mechanisms, which I totally agree with. In some cases these mechanisms are blown out of proportion in a sense, like paranoia, OCD, depression, isolation, not to mention the gang of phobias and manias that affect various people. I can see the role of the defense mechanisms in these things like shutting yourself in to avoid danger or contact with people, or someone with OCD washing their hands every few minutes to protect from germs, or someone with excessive paranoia always wondering if people are out to get them because they want to protect themselves.”

Some of this might well prove true, and survive even my scrutiny – however: the problem with saying that OCD, for example, is a defence mechanism is blurring the lines a bit. I shall elaborate: the fears an OCD patient experiences are surely some of the fears that are, a little more, rooted in reality, real problem is that these behaviours are not. Even the patient realizes that their actions are unreasonable… few do not.

So, again, it’s all down to how you slice the pie; one or the other; the chicken and the egg; Larry, Curly, and Moe. Perhaps this condition might even be something which is a legitimate fear – germs certainly exist, and abound, but the symptomology is beyond ever this reasoning.

statiktech “owever, in some cases, like the above mentioned Mr. Dahmer or Ted Bundy, the issue seems more offensive. Im sure, in early stages, they dealt with defense mechanisms such as paranoia, schitzophrenia, obsessions, manias, etc. because they knew something was amiss. But when the killing and raping and games of domination come into play these individuals are no longer protecting themselves or struggling for survival. They are threatening and destroying the defenses and survival of others.”

I don’t think I would say that psychosis has much to do with the serial killer mentality. It isn’t listed as a diagnostic object in either the DSM-IV TR or the ICD-10, but pure psychology had compartmentalized it.

These people are obviously quite sane, not driven to the edge, not stifled by society so they lash out, and surely not because they always got picked last for softball games in grade 4 gym class. I would attest that these people have a mind set that, while aberrant, is completely conducive to everyday logic, they just accept and repel things of which we are not currently aware.

onlyhuman “as a simple oppinion that seems very to the point and very accurate, but bear in mind that with the first case mentioned if these defense mechanisms had been dealt with before the breaking point then the offense mechanisms would never have come into play, and though they are conciderably harder to deal with on this level the can still be dealt with.”

I would contest the idea of offensive mechanisms – perhaps they are either defence mechanisms you cannot classify, yourself, as something which would herald change for their betterment. I would agree that this section of my dissertation of thin, and probably flawed, but I believe these people are not offensive without it being an article of defence, but I don’t buy into the ‘defensive’ paradigm to begin with, so I am disgressing.

statiktech “Hmm, I think your choice of words is a little confusing. I don’t think he was talking about preventing mental illness. The best you can hope to do as far as prevention is to just raise and educate a child in his/her developmental stages the best you can.”

I think we have all hit on something valuable here: prevention is key. You can’t, per se, prevent someone from developing a thought disorder or a mood disorder, but you can recognize the potential for this problems and take therapeutic precautions. I do not believe, however, that educating children will really help the problem, though.

statiktech “However, even if the question is “can we treat all mental illnesses” the answer would still be no, in my opinion.”

Simply: yes.

statiktech “This is also why we have establishments to house the criminally insane, because most of the people there are believed to be a threat to themselves and/or others and no treatment can effectively change that.”

The problem with the near-axiomatic with your thesis is that the criminally insane are often not mentally ill. Criminal insanity is put down to people who cannot stop abusing rules and regulations. You might say Antisocial Personality Disorder and other give regard for momentum in this direction, but personality disorders aren’t considered to be clinical disorders in the first place. They fall into the Axis II category, which are trait disorders as opposed to the state disorders as accounted for by the Axis I (which is the rubric something like schizophrenia falls under). The Axis II also encapsulated mental retardation, but are retarded people really mentally ill; I suppose, at worse, it could be a moot point.

statiktech “In the context of where the discussion is going, I do think that people who have the potential of a psychotic break can be treated to prevent them from becoming a threat. Though, even if the individual learns to cope and manage his episodes, he still has an illness and the potential to break and become a threat no matter what stage his illness is caught in.”

Yes.

And before I get ahead of myself, I will close this communication on what perhaps will be a more irritating note: no one is perhaps more fucked up than they are willing to allow themselves to be. Mental patients are not “fucked up” I a sense, they are merely transgressive to the positive inertia of society.

In France psychoanalysis and homeopathy are the order of the day. Whether this is more problematic that efficacious than our ideas and protocols farther west, I am unsure, but it seems that deranged people can, indeed, fit in, perhaps still with limited effectiveness, but they still serve to maintain at least enough composure to find themselves at a similar level to most humans they encounter.

Perhaps I am full of shit, but I believe mental illness is not the entity you all are making it out to be. Have fun with it, kids.