Go to Adventures in Psychosis
- Add a comment
- Go to Bring me your pain
Mia
Well Mia, you're going through pretty tough times yourself, and you know what they say: Misery loves company. Could that be a part of it?
posted by
Unidentified_Hacker
on March 8, 2005 at 9:07 AM
| link to this | reply
uni
I only know that happy people make me sick and quesy, so maybe the reverse is true...misery makes me happy...wonder hwy that is???
posted by
MiaElla
on March 8, 2005 at 8:29 AM
| link to this | reply
mary
Oh those guys? I traded them for some magic beans that will sprout so tall we can climb to the clouds!
posted by
Unidentified_Hacker
on March 7, 2005 at 5:20 PM
| link to this | reply
UH,
You're right. I better get walking. Now, where is that Scarecrow, and that Lion?
posted by
Blanche.
on March 7, 2005 at 5:10 PM
| link to this | reply
mary
Come now, you know where he is. Just follow the yellow brick road
posted by
Unidentified_Hacker
on March 7, 2005 at 5:09 PM
| link to this | reply
And, I'm Dorothy, now if I could just click my ruby red slippers three time and make it back home to Kansas, I'd be fine. Where is that wizard?
posted by
Blanche.
on March 7, 2005 at 5:02 PM
| link to this | reply
mary
hehe, tin man. That's cute
posted by
Unidentified_Hacker
on March 7, 2005 at 5:00 PM
| link to this | reply
UH,
whew, thanks for the props. I was worried that some of that you would find irrelevant to your situation. Anyway, good luck on your quest for a heart, Tin Man.
posted by
Blanche.
on March 7, 2005 at 4:49 PM
| link to this | reply
To everyone who commented here
Thank you very very much for your comments. I really love a good discussion about stuff that people disagree on. And it stayed civilized. Crikey! When it comes to posting comments and talking about issues, remember this:
"Discussion is an exchange of knowledge, an argument an exchange of ignorance." - Robert Quillen
posted by
Unidentified_Hacker
on March 7, 2005 at 4:45 PM
| link to this | reply
UH,
It's been awhile since we've been online at the same time. Anyway, enough of my bloviating and pontificating. Did that sound wrong, "shows the love"? Nah, Just keep your trench coat on, buddy.
posted by
Blanche.
on March 7, 2005 at 4:32 PM
| link to this | reply
D
No no, thank YOU. You've made me rethink my arguments and thoughts, which in turn makes me revise them, which in turn makes them (hopefully) better. Not only that, but there's enough content in these comments for SEVERAL more posts!
posted by
Unidentified_Hacker
on March 7, 2005 at 4:28 PM
| link to this | reply
mary
Haha, me? Offended? pfft. I don't believe in being offended. That might be a fun post. "Do your best to offend Unidentified_Hacker!!". And where's the love? Why, it's right here! *shows you "the love"*. Hmm, that sounded wrong, didn't it?
posted by
Unidentified_Hacker
on March 7, 2005 at 4:26 PM
| link to this | reply
Thanks, Denison, after reading the comments going on, I was afraid to tangle with you, but I'm flattered you think this is a good discussion. Anyway, UH, what's up? Did I offend you somehow? where is the love?
posted by
Blanche.
on March 7, 2005 at 4:20 PM
| link to this | reply
Mary X
I'm not bailing on this discussion because this is about the most stimulating dialogue I've had on Blogit in weeks! (Tomorrow we'll sit and just gossip about all the other bloggers we don't like! Okay?) Sadly, I do have to get along now...it's already past 7 PM and I've got things to do tonight. As for your examples of art, music, literature...Mary, you might be right about them and I'll have to rethink my position. I'll get back to this exchange tomorrow, though. I really have to go now.
Hacker, thanks for the inspiration. Great topic you've got here. Shit, now I'll have to read up a bit.
--D
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on March 7, 2005 at 4:17 PM
| link to this | reply
Dennison, I hardly know where to begin to respond to this. I'll just say that in comparing dogs copulating, they are definitely driven by hormones, because females only mate during estrus. In regard, to a mother cat cleaning her kittens, I wouldn't know what goes through a cat's brain. Cat owners definitely feel that their pets feel love and give it.
When you say that that gets into the realm of the soul and that that's impossible to define, should we deny the existence of a soul merely because it can't be weighed, codified and examined like brain cells, neurons, using MRIs or some other evidence of chemical or electrical activity? An example of a complex behavior, how about something that isn't merely to fill the need for surival like poetry, art, or music, if it were not to feed a deeper need than mere physical survival, why would any of these exist?
posted by
Blanche.
on March 7, 2005 at 4:04 PM
| link to this | reply
As A Matter of Fact, You Did!
I'm sure that I have little more to add to this discussion. Before I stop, though, I'd like to address one thing that Mary X added. She said,
"Regarding Dennison Mann's comment, the theory of behavioral adaptation, the pain-pleasure principle, that genetics and environment solely describe the human being as a soullless machine has been trendy since the late 18th century, but it fails to take into account the person as a loving, feeling sentient being that becomes that unique individual. It's just not sufficient to explain the complexity of human behavior."
I counter that heredity and environment certainly do take into accont the person as a loving, feeling, sentient being. Even children raised in a loveless home learn to love, but they learn that love somewhere....from an aunt, an uncle, a teacher, a coach, a friend. On top of that, the biological need to reproduce (evident throughout nature) drives adolescents into the arms of another who might teach one another about the love they never felt at home. Would Mary X regard the copulation of dogs as something loving, feeling, sentient or is it just procreation? What about fruit flies? Do they "feel love?" A mother cat licks her month-old kitten's forehead. Does that act of nurturing define love between a mother and her offspring? From here we enter into the arena of the soul and exactly how do we define the soul? Does love define the human soul? How does the human soul differ from the feline, bovine, canine, ovine, or simian soul? As for explaining the complexity of human behavior, we could run a test. You provide one complexity of human behavior that cannot be rationalized through genetics and environment and I'll agree.
--D
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on March 7, 2005 at 3:45 PM
| link to this | reply
D
You've made a good point about John Nash and the drowning of his baby. My own points perhaps need some revising. While I said that it mental imbalance is matter of cultural perspective, is also a fact that people with conditions such as mine can become a threat to themselves and those around them, either through action or inaction.
As for my row being especially tough to hoe, I wouldn't say that. I am mostly able to work enough to support myself, and with the help of antipsychotic medications am able to keep my hallucinations and delusions under control. As for John Nash, wow. I admire his ability to cope and take control of his condition even when effective medications were non-existent. The movie, A Beautiful Mind, did a very good job of portraying his condition, although major factors were left out. For example, he believed that aliens were communicating with him on a regular basis. A doctor once asked him how a mind like his, so grounded on logic, could believe that aliens were speaking to him. His reply was that the aliens came from the same place the math came from, so why wouldn't he believe them? It's often not a matter of the schizophrenic trying to convince himself that delusions and hallucinations aren't real, but rather the schizophrenic trying to convince the rest of the world they are. It is SUCH a strong belief that I honestly don't know what to compare it to. I guess the only thing I can compare it to is that when I personally was 12 years old, I knew, not thought, but KNEW that my parents were not my real parents. I knew that everyone around me was hired by someone I didn't know to watch me and interact with me. I knew it as clearly as I knew that cement is hard. It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of certainty. I said "matter" a lot in this post didn’t I?
posted by
Unidentified_Hacker
on March 7, 2005 at 2:58 PM
| link to this | reply
Ariala
Consider my blogs an open forum =)
posted by
Unidentified_Hacker
on March 7, 2005 at 2:38 PM
| link to this | reply
Factor
A very very common misconception is that Schizophrenia is some sort of split or multiple personality disorder. In fact it is not. The current term for what you’re thinking of is DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder). While schizophrenia is a sort of “splitting of the mind”, it does not have to do with multiple personalities. Probably the reason that many people associate schizophrenia with multiple personalities is the fact that many schizophrenics experience auditory hallucinations, where we hear someone speaking as if it were coming from an external source other than our mind. There is no way to control what these voices say or when they speak, and since they seem to be autonomous, it would be very easy to think of them as another personality.
To answer your question of whether or not schizophrenia has anything to do with my enjoyment of other peoples' pain, I'm honestly not sure. Many sociopathic behaviors are sometimes linked to schizophrenia, but in my particular case, I don't know. It's good to hear that the mind interests you =), and if you'd like to learn more, simply browse the internet for sites regarding Schizophrenia or Psychosis in general. Try to look for medical journals, etc. Thanks for the comment.
posted by
Unidentified_Hacker
on March 7, 2005 at 2:29 PM
| link to this | reply
Mannison, I assume you're referring to me again as presenting myself as
some sort of expert. I've repeated over and over that I'm no expert on anything, even though you've said that I claim that (on my blogs you've accused me of thinking that.) So for the record, once again, I'm not an expert nor do I consider myself one on any subject. I, too, only speak from opinions when I blog.
Hacker, thanks for letting me say this again here.
posted by
Ariala
on March 7, 2005 at 2:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Unidentified Hacker,
First off, you're brilliant. Having that much intelligence is a gift and a curse. The curse of intelligence is hubris, the fatal flaw in the Greek tragedies, the downfall of many a Greek hero. Oedipus, Jason, Midas, etc. all challenged the gods and lost. Those who are lucky enough to live through this encounter learn humility and that the mind of a mere mortal can't comprehend the inifinity of the universe, and that time outlives us all. You are right, we would go insane.
Love is the healer and the key, empathy, compassion (com-with, passion-suffering). Connecting from the heart. If you're looking at people who are suffering emotionally as lab rats and wondering how to push buttons and pull strings, then somehow you have to find a way to reconnect to your humanity.
Regarding Dennison Mann's comment, the theory of behavioral adaptation, the pain-pleasure principle, that genetics and environment solely describe the human being as a soullless machine has been trendy since the late 18th century, but it fails to take into account the person as a loving, feeling sentient being that becomes that unique individual. It's just not sufficient to explain the complexity of human behavior.
(I'm not setting myself up as an expert, per Dennison Mann's comment, merely an observor or my own and other people's behavior and having lived on this planet for a certain number of years.).
posted by
Blanche.
on March 7, 2005 at 2:24 PM
| link to this | reply
Mental Imbalances
First off--in contrast to how other bloggers operate--I do not present myself as some sort of self-proclaimed expert in any field (other than my own opinion) and especially not in the field of psychology. Anything I might post here will be a matter of mere conjecture and intended as representing nothing more than my point of view. Having said that, I do not believe in good. I do not believe in evil. I believe that we can trace all human behavior to two sources: environment and heredity. I notice that I sneeze much the way my father sneezes. I notice that I stand to the way my mother stands. I notice that I express myself similar to the way both my parents express themselves. My children mimic my actions but they also do things that they've never seen me do in the exact same manner I do them. (My son has never seen me play baseball but he plays almost exactly the way I play.) Conversely, he also has reacted to his environment in certain regards to compose his own set of rituals and habits. His generation knows the dangers of smoking, for example. He has never smoked but I did smoke many years ago. I only know what I see and can only speak about my experiences.
Coincidentally, I just finished watching Ron Howard's "A Beautiful Mind" and have gained at least a small understanding of how delusional people see the world. The deepest impact I felt after watching that film came when I fully realized just how John Nash had struggled to reach a level of acceptable functioning within the confines of his torment. He learned to sort out the real from the unreal and subsequently won the Nobel Prize. For me, his struggle represented how we all learn to function within our mental confines, but some of us have an easier time than others. John Nash, it seems, had an especially tough row to hoe. Perhaps your row is just tougher than most?
Somewhere, though, comes a defining border between acceptable and unacceptable mental instability. Had Nash drowned his son because of his halucinations, he would have been innocent by reasons of insanity but still tucked away from society, nonetheless. Nash was fortunate. He recognized his problem and gained control of the delusional world that never really left him. The drowning (had it occured) would have been tragic...probably not "wrong" and certainly not evil. Still, the drowning would have been unacceptable.
I can't say whether taking delight in another's misfortune (any type of misfortune) is wrong or right. Certainly, such delight flies against the current of popular thinking. After all, we're almost ordered to have compassion, understanding, even pity when someone suffers for things beyond their control. Whether it's right or wrong, I can't say. But good or evil? I'd say neither. Different? Definitely different. Pardonable? To a degree. Such delight, does however, raise suspicions from those around you when things get out of kilter.
--D
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on March 7, 2005 at 2:05 PM
| link to this | reply
I am not knowledgeable here, so I have a question
You are schizophrenic? Does that really mean separate personalities? Do they all enjoy others' pain or just the "dominant" personality?
I am curious since the workings of the mind interest me.
posted by
FactorFiction
on March 7, 2005 at 2:02 PM
| link to this | reply
D
I would agree with you when you say that there is no such thing as "evil", that it's all perspective. But also I would want you to think about your ideas of mental imbalance. I have schizophrenia; hallucinations and delusions are a part of my every day life. I have what we today call a mental illness, I am by definition insane. So you might say that I am mentally imbalanced, and I wouldn’t bother to argue that point with you. What I would ask you to do is look back and see that in the past, in some societies, psychosis was considered a divine gift, hearing the voices of inspiration from other worlds. Now, perhaps those societies were less “enlightened” than us, but it still bring to bear the point that even the idea of mental imbalance is a matter of perspective, the same as the idea of evil. They tell me that something is “wrong” with my brain that makes it function the way it does, but it is really “wrong”? Or perhaps just different?
posted by
Unidentified_Hacker
on March 7, 2005 at 1:28 PM
| link to this | reply
On the Other Hand
There really is no such thing as "evil." All harmful behavior can be traced to mental activity...whether balanced or imbalanced. Certainly, boxers do great intentional harm to one another (just look at a retired boxer's mental state) but would we call them evil or mentally imbalanced? As far a "mentally imbalanced" goes, I guess it depends on your perspective, but there is no such thing as "evil." I challenge anyone to produce one (just one) example of human evil at work that mental imbalances cannot explain. Rapists? Think hard. Thieves? Doubtful. Hitler? Come now, surely you don't think he was sane, do you?
--D
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on March 7, 2005 at 12:36 PM
| link to this | reply
Unidentified_Hacker, it would be very interesting, but what I've discovered
is that all people have tendencies to do good and do bad (or evil.) Sometimes it's intentional, because of inner and out circumstances which control the mood and feelings in a person. Under certain conditions all of us might steal, lie and even hurt others to survive. I'm not above thinking that I wouldn't. One might say, well, why do people do these things even when desperate conditions don't exist? Like the BTK killer...now there's an interesting case for you. His family has abandoned him, it seems...they don't understand how their father, husband and relative could do what he did. I've always thought it would be cool to become a serial giver...doing random acts of kindness without anyone knowing who's doing it. You could use all the skills and cleverness of a serial killer, but instead of bringing pain and destruction, bringing the opposite...I just wonder if the news media would waste their time covering such a thing and would you want them to anyway? 
posted by
Ariala
on March 7, 2005 at 11:54 AM
| link to this | reply
Ariala
It's funny how as the pieces come together you can start to fill in more and more of the puzzle with your mind isn't it? And to think, you hardly have enough pieces to make the tip of the tip of the iceberg. Ever wonder what it would be like to see the whole puzzle put together? I personally think that if a person could ever fully understand another human being, that person would lose their mind. What's funny is that we're always trying to learn more and break down people to their core functions until we can know why they do every little thing they do. I guess we just crave insanity. Can you imagine fully understanding a person? I mean being able to tell exactly what they're thinking based on variables such as their environment, what the last thing said was, etc etc? How could you know all of that and not go crazy?
posted by
Unidentified_Hacker
on March 7, 2005 at 11:43 AM
| link to this | reply
Well, now, my friend, I can see where the "sociopathic" qualities you
mentioned in a previous blog might fit in. LOL No, I can't stand to see anyone in emotional or physical pain. It hurts me when others hurt.
posted by
Ariala
on March 7, 2005 at 11:25 AM
| link to this | reply