Thoughts on Disorder

We are taught certain personalities are, disorderly, meaning what I’m not sure. I have my own thoughts on what those series of sounds, d i s o r d e r l y, represent. Take paranoid personality disorder for instance, is it bad, wrong, disfunctional? Says who? Is that just some psychologists opinion? At what point does a behaviour, a certain habit of thinking, feeling or being become a disorder? When it’s abnormal, when it disturbs others? How 'bout when it causes more harm, as in, pain, sorrow and danger, than pleasure, joy and safety, for the patient and others directly involved, hmmm, I can accept this definition as more objective than-- well, we just don’t like you.

No, infact, you ought to not like yourself, and here is why-- not only are you causing others harm, but yourself, and we know you better than you know yourself, because we’re smart and we’ve studied human nature, therefore, we suggest you change your behaviour. Yes, yes I like that, offering advice, rather than merely imposing your values on someone. Well, I think you would be happier if you followed our directions and ceased with the behaviour in question, as opposed to just ordering them to cease, like a commandment, or dictation. I prefer advice to commandments and dictations.

So, now that we got the question of-- what is a personality disorder, out of the way more/less, at least to my satisfaction, back to paranoids… what makes paranoia… disorderly, or a character trait any consciencious, calculative, utilitarian person ought not want to possess?

An irrational fear of others, they say, hmmm, irrational? Is going on a roller coaster ride irrational? It serves no logical or, survival purpose? I guess so long as the behaviour/emotion is a pleasant one, it’s less likely to be deemed irrational than a negative one, like fear, dread, anxiety or depression, so irrational fear, really isn’t the right combination of words then, at least, not in the strictest sense of the word-- irrational, as in, hmmm. If we are to be consistent, more like painful emotion. An emotion or behaviour that causes pain, with little or no forseeable benefits (pleasure, joy, safety). Yes, this is a very calculative, consequential, hendoic approach that appeals to me, but I suppose other psychologists may not like or take such an approach.

The function of our mind is to find the truth, the function of our heart is to be happy, the function of our senses is to have pleasure, be happy, have pleasure, why not have happy, be pleasure, haha, nevermind that for now. The function of our body is to survive, so… you could say that the proper definition of disorder ought to be, when one of our faculties fails to perform it’s function, when one of our facultires is the cause of it’s own failure, not any external circumstances, no, but the faculty itself. When the mind fails to discern the truth, when the heart fails to find happines, etc. It is sick, it is not healthy. We have to look at the longterm, I would think, as rational creatures. Some actions, words, behaviours, feelings and thoughts may endanger us in the shorterm, may make us unhappy in the shorterm, but may be performed for some longterm goal, one that would make the sacrifice of the present for the future, worthwhile.

What thing in nature will always lead to the attainment of happiness, pleasure, etc??? Wings, arms, feet, tongues, teeth, and what behaviours??? Nature teaches us that no one set of physical attributes or behaviours is, good, for all circumstances. Hence, some animals are well adapted to this environment, others to that. Humans, having intelligence, can adapt to many environments, many more than most, if not all other creatures, no wonder we’re so successful, from a “be fruitful and multiply” standpoint, well, at least for the moment. We have the power to alter our behaviour, to do extrinsic things like change the wheels of our cars, wash our hands, buckle up before driving, brush our teeth, exchange information, etc, extrinsic behaviours that are not normally valued in and of themselves, but to avoid some future disaster, or attain some future benefit.

The psychologist then, their task is to teach us, when and when not to alter ourselves. They hold the keys to our evolution, in a way, much as the moral philosopher.

So, if we live in a relative, ever changing world, nothing set in stone, where no behaviour is good in and of itself, example-- the behavioural differences between bonobos and chimps, then why did psychologists single out fear, paranoia for condemnation and not it’s opposite-- hope, trust or faith? In terms of survival and in terms of sacrificing present pleasures for future pleasures, fear, like any negative emotion, can be very useful. For example, for a Jew to be habitually fearful during WW2 in Nazi Germany, could have been fairly productive and, rational, no? So then, it’s the circumstance that makes the behaviour disfunctional or not, right? Is it possible someone could have a pattern, a persistent character trait of trusting others, no matter how many times they’ve been taken advantage of, used, abused, discarded, they’ve failed to change their natural, instrinsic tendency toward trust, and start excersising caution, cynicism, pessimism? Take a woman who helps people without thnking of the potential consequences-- she’ll help a male stranger she just met on the street move furniture from his truck to his apartment, alone, just the two of them. She leaves her front door unlocked, despite inhabiting a crime infested neighbourhood. She walks home alone at midnight, rather than take a cab. She never saves receipts, or checks her bag to make sure all her groceries were placed in, to see if she was accidentally or intentionally cheated. People continually take advantage of her naivite, upon getting to know her. Would we not say this woman has a problem, not only that, but a set of personality traits, trust, naivite, innocence, lack of reasonable fear, etc, that are getting her into trouble? She may or may not be aware of the potential dangers of her behaviour, or she may have trouble altering them, because they’re so deeply ingrained. Maybe she was raised with loving parents in a peaceful, prosperous neighbourhood, and is having trouble adapting to the slum she now finds herself in. We could say her past is partially responsible for making her so, sheepish. Or maybe, she inherited trusting biological or psychic genes (that’s right, you just read that) from her forbearers. So then, no doubt there are people like this, you probably know someone like this, if you’re the extraverted sort. Does this, disorder, not deserve a name, recognition and treatment? What shall we call it, eh? How 'bout, naivete disorder, not a bad ring to it… think of a better one?

I think human beings are still terribly, terribly irrational. The fact that we imagine certain behaviours as always good or always bad, is itself, a kind of disorder, a refusal to commit to reality, to acknowledge the transient, relativistic nature of the universe. We long for a spirtual life, with a set of absolutes and thou shalt nevers, why should psychology be any, any different than religion? The truth is, fear, hope, love, hate, joy, sorrow, can all be irrational and lead to our mental, emotional and physical destruction. If we are to evolve, to be intelligent, to adapt, we have to acknowledge, develop and nurture both sides of our temperament (neg/pos), both sides of our intellect as well (left/right). Naturally, extreme left brainers are searching for ultra conservative absolutes to desperately cling to all throughout their lives, a solid rock, a foundation on which to construct their kingdom, but unfortunately, no such foundation exists, and if we are to culturally and biologically progress from collective infancy upward and onward to collective adulthood, we need to recognize the power of negative thinking. All those sins, envy, pride, greed, those egotistical and negative emotions and their resulting behaviours have a purpose, narcissism (pride), what if I am intellectually superior to most, what if I do have more value, anti-social personality disorder, and all the rest of them, it is time, it is time to be fully human, the other side of us can be just as beneficial, there is two sides to the force, you see. Perhaps our dark leaders promote the light side within us, because it is easier to control gentle lambs than viscious wolves, neh? Oh-oh, getting conspiratorial here, must be my paranoid coming out, heh-heh, how convenient it must be for them.

Bipolar disorder eh, why not equatorial disorder, everything is just grey to me man, no, not shades of grey, just grey, yeah, that’s the one I have, luls.

Let us get in touch with our inner demon.

So called Passive Agressive Disorder is really some form of pessimism, fatalism, cynicism, passive… passive resistance. Once again, we have a negative, but not it’s corresponding opposite… why? Why not Aggressive Acceptance Disorder or, Optomistic Disorder? Any behaviour that’s set in stone, that ought to be the definition, when human beings refuse to adapt, when we refuse to change our primary or secondary nature, instincts/habits no matter what the cricumstance.

Then there’s Depressive Disorder… why not Happiness Disorder, can people not be irrationally happy? Can people be happy when there’s nothing to be happy about? Can people be happy for false reasons? Could there happiness get them into trouble, perhaps given their circumstances, they ought not to feel happy, but many people would disagree, they would say happiness is always good because it makes us feel good and promotes health. Well, I agree with that but, we evolved (if we did indeed evolved) depression for a purpose, but naturally our masters want us to feel good all the time and accept our lot, no matter how unacceptable and appaling our conditions are.

Paranoid, Passive Agressive, Depressive, Narcissistic, Anger management, well, why not Love management? Can people love too much, can they love inappropriately, disproportionately, sure, why not? Anything can be done to an excess or deficiency, or nearly anything, even drinking water and breathing air can be excessive, too much water and air and you die, too little and you die.

Has optimism killed us? Perhaps if we weren’t so collectively optimistic about the future, we would have lived more for the present, and not have built all these machines that’re now enslaving us, replacing human labour, taking our jobs, nevermind the fucking immigrants, it’s the machines, the machines Godamn it, soon, there wukk be nothing left for us to do, did the machines make our lives easier, despite doing all the work for us, they should of but no, our capitalist overlords (not much different then feudal overlords when you think about it) refused to share the profits with us, instead they just layed us off, bought more capital (now producing luxuries instead of necessities, luxuries mainly for themselves) and re-employed us… 'till they could replace us with machines yet again and again. Is this not a situation worthy of pessimism? Not to mention we half-near ruined the earth attempting to purchase necessities by producing garabage, absolute filth like ipods and excersise machines, blow dryers, etc. Now there’s no more work for us to do, so we’re toast. Yes, what a mess we’re in, all because we bought the lie, progress, industrialism, science and all that, maybe we should have remained in our huts and in our caves.

hmph, guess I tried to say too much in too short a space… oh well.

Good posts - will reply shortly.

I will reply longly. Good points on almost all accounts… Yes, the whole method of judgement does seem arbitrary. Personality “disorder” implies a template personality, and since such exists not, the template is usually something named “average” person… As you pointed out, the whole dichotomy of order-disorder depends on the traits that are considered desirable, on what Man is supposed to be - instead of just being. That itself is more disordery than any personality disorder (which are often confused with psychological disorders, even among experts). As I’ve already mentioned in the thread on Sociopathy, many if not all “disorders” could be simply types - nothing more or less. Not all of them impede survival (my primary gauge of normalcy) - a person who, for example, has paranoia, sees danger in everything even if someone deems such fear irrational. However, seeing danger when there is none is alot more life oriented than the opposite. So, I would be very careful not to judge before the crime is established…

I’m not a “psychologist” but,

The problem often with people of the particular mindset that would likely produce the particular thoughts you here set forth, is that they are almost always “smarter” (more aligned) then the psychologists that attempt to treat them. They understand psychology better without even having been mind-numbed by the “professionalism”. As a result of the understanding of particular things there is a more rampant alteration in behavior due largely to continual alteration in recognitions/systems-of-belief/understandings, simply because one is growing mentally at a faster rate. One moment you might think such-and-such but in the next few milliseconds, perhaps after voicing your opinion, you realize that there is a better view. The problem is that many of the behaviors resultant of this particular thinking are typically associated with things like bi-polar disorder. Or for example Attention Deficit Disorder, due to seeming attention lack that is really due to extreme distraction by ridiculously extreme brain-superstorm-thoughts. Then there comes the Paranoia, the person of this nature tends to recognize that this is surely a problem, it does exist…But the problem is not what might be thought. When one is of a particular mind they often expect others to think in like terms, you realize remarkably logical ways things could be done, ways societies could be manipulated, and then you expect that there is someone else out there running things that is instituting these things. Fortunately those of such ideas are typically logical enough to see how they are not beneficial in the long run, and one that steps past this is realizing that people aren’t “aligned” as well as you are.

“She walks home alone at midnight, rather than take a cab.” Subconscious recognition of health benefits, unnecessary cost, better recognition of the probability of being messed with given recognition of the current factors rather than the standardized statistics that are normally considered. Taking in factors like one’s own appearance, familiarity with the people around, subconscious observances of actual behavior of those around, lesser conscious observation of sound levels so as to recognize probability of number of people around which alters probability of negativity occurring…there are a lot of factors that can be picked up on by the mind, some conscious, many conscious but not even recognized due to dilution by extent and multiplicity of other thoughts occurring. Some relate these things to being psychic but much of it has to do with the ridiculous power of the brain, often the subconscious. The subconscious could probably sense the alteration in pressure of the earth’s air and relate it to a fart of a man in china. (and I don’t know that I am successfully exaggerating)

“ She never saves receipts” How often does one actually need to take something back, especially if they are of the mental capacity to not give a shit about silly things like whether something they spent a few dollars on works.

“or checks her bag to make sure all her groceries were placed in” Again low likely hood of mistake, if the mistake did occurr the loss is minimal, and there may be higher tendency for subconscious recognition of that not being occurent. Subliminal observation of the products put in the bag…etc…Though everybody makes mistakes still which lends to thinking it is a disorder

“ People continually take advantage of her naivite, upon getting to know her.” People of this nature are often nicer, simply because it actually makes more sense to be in most cases. Often one can let advantage be taken simply because of lack of care, I’m sure if someone pulled a gun they wouldn’t just help pull the trigger, unless they have gotten too far into the dumps because they can’t find anyone to talk to that actually has a form of “alignment” that is equivalent enough such as to have a good meaningful conversation. And a lot of it is due to the confusion of understanding other peoples behavior, just as it can be hard for a “low”-mind to understand the “higher”-mind it can also be harder for the “higher”-minds to understand the "lower"minded people. and as such there can be confusion as to appropriate interaction. Those who recognize the logic behind civility tend to be more civil even to those that may not “deserve” it, especially when it is hard for them to grasp those modes of thought due to simply not being natured to that mental habitat. There are ways to learn of helping with regards to that, and to aid understanding of the mentality of the more different, a lot of it comes of pattern recognition often after experience, though it can come by sudden epiphany as well.

As far as paranoia goes it is important to realize that most people don’t think that way…but also to not let the conscious mind focus too much on the lower probability factors…although it helps to realize that they aren’t as probable which can often require talking to someone about those paranoia’s who has had similar ones and found logical issues that make the probability of such things more apparently low…

I would bet most of the paranoia’s of such a person have the involvement of other people, or other thinking things.

In the end if one is lucky they figure things out on their own…but that isn’t that common when there isn’t someone to talk to. I know only one.

Unfortunately, the recognition of difference, often due to treatment from others in part, leads to attempting alterations of the self that are not as beneficial…many go into these alterations some inescapable, that falls the person. or one begins druging, self medication is typical to begin with in vary early stages of youth, and may finally think there is no hope and start taking various prescribed medications, that may reduce some symptoms for a time, but not overall, and leads to further issues.

i will probably not be back on until about 14 hours after this post…i might be able to respond minimally in the next hour.

Ah the automation…few realize that a society where everyone has robots doing work for them won’t work, as there is need for alteration in distribution of wealth in order to allow for value…many other problems would arise. Automation might be beneficial for somethings in so far as a comp might do it better where doing it better is actually needed…few and far between, and ultimately doable-without. There needs to be laws on the allowance for automation…especially considering it leads overall to the reduction in the human capacity to think as we get mentally lazier and lazier… the fear is that others might surpass us but they wouldn’t in the long run, eventually laziness would be pervasive to the degree that the system would begin to fall apart, where as those not reliant on automation, get better and better working without…in fact over time the minds would begin to evolve such as to more easily deal with things like math and what not…which would in turn lead to a better working society…People would be less likely to commit crimes if they were stupid to commit…And indeed many of the techs are enslaving anyways…in so many Abstract ways…that most won’t even recognize due to rationalization to allow for them to stay in their comfort zone…

Right, I suppose I have a consequential, individualistic and relativistic conception of disorder, if a behaviour doesn’t significantly impede quality/quantity of life, for the patient, in the long run, then there’s no problem. Since human nature and the human condition is complex, we shouldn’t expect any particular behaviour, or group of behaviours (a type) to significantly impede quality/quantity of life, for all or even most patients, in all or even most circumstances.

Right, interesting points, you’re carrying my train of thought to it’s logical conclusion, by showing how no behaviour can be said to be disordered, without considering the complexities, dynamics, intricacies and peculiarities of the circumstance the behaviour or group of behaviours is practiced in. Upon further inspection and consideration of all the factors, the behaviour or group of behaviours in question may turn out to be quite appropriate. Life, especially social life, is far too complex to make blanket assertions like-- introverts are disordered, or evil. If human relationships were simple, we wouldn’t need philosophy, but it’s not, it’s terribly, terribly obscure, concepts like disorderly and evil, are very fleeting.

Well, they’re just examples, some of my examples were more flawed, but by pointing out their flaws, you are infact proving my point, by carefully reviewing the details of a situation, what was previously thought to be bad, or disorderly, may be revealed to be, quite sane and appropriate.

Right, but in some cases, they may ought to care, like if her boyfriend whom she’s financially supporting isn’t working, and spending her money on cards and drinking… but then, perhaps it’s an individual thing, eh? Maybe that’s ok for her, but sometimes the psychologist can point out things the patient has missed, like-- your boyfriend says he’s looking for a job, but come on, the economies not that bad, he’s been out of work for a year, perhaps he’s just telling you what you want to hear so he can keep taking advantage of you, he’s not looking for a job, all of these men in your life are taking advantage of you, don’t you see? The psychologist can point out things to the patient they may have missed, things if they had of known, they would have changed their behaviour long ago. On the other hand, there is no guarentee the patient will change, she may already know her boyfriend isn’t really looking for a job, or maybe she doesn’t care, maybe she likes taking care of indolent people, maybe she has abandonment issues and for good reason, she’s 253 pounds, what have you.

Yes, but once again, it’s a bit relative/subjective, isn’t it? Some people want to fit in, they may be happy with themselves and their lives, except they’re not like everyone else. For some, conformism is their reason for existence. I suspect some people only select anti-conformism as their philosophy, only because it’s popular, lol. Why shouldn’t others go to great lengths to alter themselves, physically, emotionally and mentally? You and I may be appalled by such behaviour, but then urging or coaxing others into being themselves, may also be, a kind of imposition. Yes, some take a more authoritarian, deontological, collectivized, absolutist stance on disorder and evil. Well, you’re disordered because we said so and society doesn’t like you, now here, take these pills, and make some minor alterations to your lips and ass!

Yes master, thank you master, anything for master.

Hmmm, I disagree, I think we could create a society where machines did all the work, and we would be more than able and willing to labour to maintain the machines, I mean, things are easier now then they were centuries ago, but society isn’t falling apart due to rampant laziness, on the contrary, we’re too productive, so if things became more efficient and machines did even more of our work for us, I think the problem would be just the reverse, that we would keep working and continue producing ever more frivolous excrement, even though our basic necessities and more were taken care of. Our problem is, we’re hyper competitive and hyper dilligent, not the other way 'round, which is why the rich refuse to share the wealth with us, and allow us to lead more leisurely lives, they hoard all the money, and are hard at work, usurping ever greater quantities of wealth and worrying 'bout the future ever more.

That was my point, i didn’t mean to dis it or anything…

I wouldn’t consider it having much of anything to do with abandonment issues…(I think there might be other reasons why abandonment is common in association to such things…it may be a post hoc ergo propter hoc sort of fallacy) Rather i would say there are many cases where one ought to care and that most of these cases will likely form later in life as a result of growing a habit of a form of dealing with people; that is to say one gets used to dealing with people too nicely and over time begins to get used but then gets used to being used, then the feelings of care are disbanded more and more in that they seem only to be productive of anxiety. So there is less feeling of need to consciously consider what may be a problem in dealing with ‘users’.

It is however very important to realize that few (i think nobody) intentionally does wrong, they think what they are doing is right, therein rather than just getting rid of the user it is better to make attempts to rationally point out where that user is doing things that are felt as using. ( it is possible they think they are right in that they are successfully using…but one would need to know the person better or hear more of them to tell such) Often the user just has a habit of being reliant…and can come up with very convincing rationalizations for the behavior because indeed they are vary convinced in what they are doing. Therein though it is important to be careful not to push too hard against revealing how their comfort zone is not decent, as it can lead to severe resistance or a tendency to not listen or even fake listening. (wheein they might be a better person and of value if they were lead into less habitually detrimental habits, to both others and the self) But I find it important to start by showing them their capacity or tendency of using. This does not even need to be done directly one can simply not do certain things, I find it important not to lie and say it was forgotten but avoid the situation where such has to be said, say it if compelled but it is easy enough to just say one didn’t feel like doing that thing… Basically the method is to step away without making it obvious that such is being done, much of which is a matter of doing it one step at a time; like coaxing to pet a new stray animal one approaches it slowly one step at a time…but reverse the process… to a point where the reliance is at a distance acceptable. but of course there are then problems like the person not having a job… Groceries are an easy thing, one can just start buying less… buying things less often even… but then slowness is not always the best approach alone, there needs to be variation I would think… let the discomfort be known… and in the end if the other is not willing to deal with things they’ll just leave, or resort to violence, wherein if they resort to violence one points it out and gets out, should it be truly extreme… And as far as finding a job…one can try looking for a job for them…it may seem like then one is having to do more for them… but it is worth it to see if that one will actually put effort into looking into that job. If they don’t then its worth pointing it out and being more direct. I would think if one fails to go to say 3 interviews they don;t care…again that doesn’t mean their evil… possibly discussion and pointing it out can help…if not it is best to move on…but then at the same time if one finds value in the relationship then perhaps it is worth it, that just depends on the person…The best question to ask though is often whether one can find a person that will be more helpful…will lend to mutual growth in what matters, be that spiritual, or what…

And finally psychologist can be very useful but you have to pay for them, friends can be good too especially the ones one can really open up to. But yes someone who works on looking into the problem though may be seeing a silly reasons, but they can still be informative, and point out important things otherwise unnoticed. It goes like this with any, a great idea can come from the least likely of places, often those that are less “professionalized” see things otherwise missed by those who take the more distinctive paths… Though I personally don’t see much value in a psychologist, unless one practically has…IDk down syndrome or something and there is a miracle cure… there is generally no need for drugs…it might be harder, but often the hard path has the best results in the long run.

Yes, I would think there is no such thing as anti- conformism exactly… Rather there are levels of following what is typical with respect to the behavior of society. As such one is normal or not normal, those who call themselves anti-conformists are merely one trying to hold within the minority group. rather than actually be the true ‘abnormal’… i don’t know that any one would want to be or it is logical to want to be such…nonetheless such occurs, and often such are dealt with unkindly…I say, “Be your own kind of conformist.”

Ultimately everything is subjective though, it becomes truly a matter of just seeing what others want, and pointing out how to achieve such, often one does things that do not really lead to what is wanted…You might say that in terms of humanity at least there is the one value wanted by all and that is what is subjectively right to that person… but then there is also the issue that what people want is pleasure, many want immediate pleasure but it would really seem that what all logically want is ‘the most amount of pleasure they can fit within there lifetime’…and i would think there are actually means of leading people subjectively into the capacity to do such which oddly relies a lot on internationalism, in other words caring for others is actually self-beneficial, not simply because society expects it…society expects such because it is beneficial rather(some see it backwards it would seem)…we were conditioned by the naturality of such to feel that way… one can think of it as simply as this…If one throws a ball in a room, if they throw it the “wrong-way” then it will come back and hit them when it bounces off the wall, and if they were just hellaciously forceful then the ball has so much force behind it it bounces off so many times it inevitably hits the person pretty much regardless of how they threw it…or basically if you fuck with your environment (be it plants and stuff, or humans and stuff, or animals and stuff, or mass or whatever) it fucks with you because you simply rely on the environment…

Ultimately it is important to not see it as simply a matter of fitting in or not…I think of it like this: it is important to sometimes buy new clothes to fit, other times it is better to lose wait to fit the clothes… in other words one can change the environment to fit better, or one can change the self to fit into the environment better. both are good, in terms of social affairs it seems there is too much the tendency to try to fit in disregarding that it may be healthier to try to change the social ways…but of course people see that as too hard and avoid it, but then they are thinking they have to change the whole world, when really one just needs to do the smallest thing to help the world change (its the butterfly effect), one doesn’t need to expect to see a result in a life time but one can, just don’t expect it to happen instantly or to some grand degree, every body expects the ‘movie-miracle’ nowadays…and then sometimes of course it is good to just change the self to fit or to find peace with what cannot be changed ( of course doing too much or too little of either is bad…for example our technologies seem to be too much of attempt to change the outside rather than just get used to the simplicity already had…)

it requires energy to power machines, we would have to start mining resources from outerspace, there are not engouh resources on our plantet to maintain such a system and there is not enough space to coolect a sufficent enough amount of solar power…even givin space panels it would require beming down the enrgy and there would be limtits to the stregth of the beam and other such things… But I believe we may be more productive but there are a lot of factors to take into considerations, for one we have more of a population, but then we have machines and other technologies as well, so exponentially the growth of productin has grown, but I do not know that it would be good or healthy to rely completely on robots…It might not even be fun…
Each person would have to have a specific number of robots, how could otherwise a person be allowed the right to have more than the rest when that person is not actually working for it? That would just be giving the person the right to have more to do more work to make more money if there was money…

But then how would the money system work because how could anybody be decided to have more than another?
again if all had the exact same amount of stuff it would have no value, because there would be no need for trade, everyone already had what they needed…

So everyone would have to have exactly the same stuff and there would be no function served by trading at all. or even gift giving as everything would have to be had equally by everybody…
But everything cannot be physically within an equally fair distance…literally…and metaphorically

So not everyone could have the same stuff or access to the same stuff at any time, but if there was no way of appointing who got to have what such as by value of effort then how would things be fair at all?

And while for a time it is possible that a moral system might hold the people to keep being active so as not to get mentally and physically lazy i imagine that over time that system would corrupt whereupon it would become harder and hard to motivate or anything…

I think walking towards try to do it all is dangerous as it seems we have yet figured out how or if it could logically work out…it is rather plausible that it could be catastrophic, even though it would be nice to work out…i just don’t know that we can…IDK

I’m going to think on this more…

Yes, at some point in her history, perhaps she chose to care for people, because she enjoys caring for people and she was adequately appreciated and reciprocated by the people she took care of. Ergo, she formed a habit of caring for people. Now she’s caring for this man out of habit, even though she’s not being appreciated and reciprocated, it’s difficult for her to change, her character trait is deeply ingrained. It could take her months or years before she’s able to break the habit. She’s not helping out of ignorace of his selfishness and lack of need, nor does she necessarily enjoy taking care of selfish people, but she’s compulsively helping him, and perhaps a psychologist, psychiatrist or friend could help her deal with her compulsion, by reminding her she has the power to change, but these things take time.

Anyway, the point is, there’s so many variables when dealing with human nature and relationships, which is why it’s foolish and immature to lable one group of behaviours as disordered and another group of behaviours as healthy, you have to closely examine each patient and their environment, or at least, that’s my take on it, I wonder what your typical psychologist would say?

In my view, the red seems to contradict the blue. I tend to agree with the blue, I’m inclined to think of man as a rational animal, however, there seems to be instances where the red asserts it’s dominance against the blue, hence the origin of and need for will power and dicipline.

I prefer wise councel to medication as well, meds can have harmful, unintended consequences, and they make can make you permanently, financially dependent on your psychiatrist. You never get better, you treat the symptoms but not the disease. What if you run out of the money to pay for the meds, they stop working or, you get sick of the “side effects” and decide to go off them, your symptoms could come back, ten times worse than they were before.

I think there is such a thing as anticonformism, if it comes from within, if it comes from without, it’s just another kind of conformism. Then there’s just doing what you want to do, irrespective of others wishes, or what others are doing, which is neither conformism nor anticonformism.

I think if we focused more on necessities than luxuries, if we produced less junk, there would be enough energy to power the machines… but we digress.

I’ll have to follow Magsj and Archangel and say, I need to give this careful thought and will get back sometime later, since it’s after 1am my time.

Night, night, sweet pea.

A typical Psych might say such but saying is not practicing.

I believe the case of the person still helping is not merely a ‘compulsion’ it is largely a matter of knowing but not believing…like the idea of hearing and not listening… the person recognizes that especially within society such is labeled as not being beneficial but then they also see so many labellings that are silly, that lends, on some level of thought conscious/subconscious, to that person not as willingly believing that that particular label might be in alignment with reality, to some more significant degree. And indeed things do take time, but considering that in relation to something is odd when everything takes time, it may be useful to point out to someone that seems not to see such but repetition of that to the self only serves to extenuate the time, typically…

It is important I think to also not necessarily hold all the associations of the word “selfish” as really everybody is out for helping the self, even when someone does good, it is seen as good because something beneficial will occur, be that not for the skin then for something cared about thus, one is being self-caring by act of wanting what satisfies what one cares about… it is natural people go after what they want…So it is not a matter of showing someone they are selfish, as that word is true to all in so far as self-caring goes selfish implies self-caring that is not good. but then than really when someone is doing self-caring that is not good they are simply being bad at self-caring. they are not doing what would be best for the self for example in that parson continuing behaviors that prevents social functioning. but then that is silly to one such as the ‘helper’ of that person because, “why does it matter that it society doesn’t like that behavior” it becomes a matter of how being lazy is not beneficial to that person. it would seem to me that such is not beneficial in that (to some degree social functioning is needed) mainly it lends to weakening of the body and mind that reduces capacity to function and keep the self alive and perhaps more importantly happy, in many ways.

There is indeed a point where one must accept that one cannot do anything about the person’s ignorance but must rather distance, or even resort to other methods if necessary; but i find that it can often be that habit of being reliant can be overcome and can be helped to overcome…in simply being as generally as such as mentioned it would not seem that the person can be assumed to be unhelpable, rather it depends on the various situations, thus more information would be required.

I meant *psychiatrist when I said “I don’t see much value in a psychologist”…but I think you picked that up…

Yes I would say the bassically there is such as ‘anticonformism’ in that one can be of a state of not being easly submissive to what is not understood. Such I would think I would think we were given logical thinking…

might i be right to consider you of The Lucis Trust?

LT, your posts are too long to go over line by line or even post by post, so I’ll try to define what I think are your main points–I know you’ll correct me if I’ve misunderstood or misinterpreted what you’ve said.

First, you decry labeling a person as having a psychological ‘disorder’ simply because s/he doesn’t ‘fit into’ some sort of statistically ‘normal’ pattern. Actually, I don’t believe anyone fits into a ‘norm’–not completely, anyhow. If you take a bell curve and split it vertically down the middle, some of us would fall on one side and some on the other. Whether or not one side or the other is either positive or negative makes no real nevermind–it depends on how far from the mid-line they fall that matters.

That said, there’s really no need for anyone to seek psychiatric ‘help’ unless their deviation causes either them, or the people close to them, discomfort and worry. But no one can ‘force’ anyone else to seek psychiatric ‘help.’ The so-called ‘patient’ has to want it themselves. The state (based on evidence of repeated offenses) can ‘recommend’ a psychiatric ‘review.’ This is usually where the ‘patient’ often becomes the most resistant to any kind of therapy.–But I’m maundering.

If someone is ‘diagnosed’ as being ‘too deviant’ from the norm (by whom?–the very people who defined the ‘norm’ and created the labels, of course,) then that person undergoes treatment based on whatever label s/he falls under.

Okay, getting back to what I think you’re talking about; primarily, drug therapy. Different people react to different drugs in different ways. There are people who hate the side-effects of anti- psychotic medications because, while the drugs may help the patient to feel and think more clearly, a side-effect makes them feel they’re thinking/feeling in some sort of pea-soup fog, which isn’t the way they would normally think or feel. Are those people not just remembering how they thought/felt before they became ill?

Yes, it’s time to “…get in touch with our inner demon.” To realize and understand none of us falls into the exact middle of the bell curve, is one thing; however, to learn how to control the demon is quite another. If not controlling the demon causes anyone pain or unease, then the choice has to be made. What’s more important–how you feel or how you and the people around you feel. That can be a pretty difficult trade, no?