![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by trouble on February 24, 2002, at 6:01:10
Hey Old School,
This is in response to your Yates diatribe.
I feel your pain.
You're absolutely right about the mentally ill more likely to be vicitimized than perpetrators.Mental illness and insanity are considered very different things. OCD is a mental illness, as is SAD, GAD, dysthymia, nicotine addiction, and hundreds of other DSM classifications.
I, however am insane.
Just wanted to get clear on our definitions there.I have alot of questions about your post, and hope you'll consider responding to some of them.
If reason (according to Western philosphy, circa 17th century) is what elevates man above the beasts, and insane people are by definition bereft of reason, what does that make us in the eyes of society?
Useless and dangerous subhuman brutes. Degenerate. Social wastage. These are direct quotes from 20th Centuray American politicians.Historically, the very existence of the insane threatens the existence of the normal, b/c philanthropy on our behalf uses up their resources, and b/c we might go after them w/ a hatchet if they take our seat on the subway.
Beside the usual involuntary committments, lobotomies and incarceration, twentieth century American assaults on the insane have included forced sterilizations and prohibition from marriage.
I am painfully aware of how these attitudes, these facts harm me, since I know that I do not pose a danger to anyone.
Having said that, I have observed crazy people up close and at length who were fine until they murdered someone. I have also been near people who, while psychotic posed a threat to innocent victims, stopping just short of murder, and I have been frightened by someone experiencing a psychotic episode who no one, including myself could ever be afraid of otherwise. They became dangerous only during the psychosis.
How does one reconcile all this?
w/ respect, trouble
Posted by trouble on February 25, 2002, at 11:20:38
In reply to Old School hornets nest, posted by trouble on February 24, 2002, at 6:01:10
Posted by OldSchool on February 25, 2002, at 11:38:51
In reply to Old School hornets nest, posted by trouble on February 24, 2002, at 6:01:10
> Hey Old School,
>
> This is in response to your Yates diatribe.
>
> I feel your pain.
> You're absolutely right about the mentally ill more likely to be vicitimized than perpetrators.
>
> Mental illness and insanity are considered very different things. OCD is a mental illness, as is SAD, GAD, dysthymia, nicotine addiction, and hundreds of other DSM classifications.
>
> I, however am insane.
> Just wanted to get clear on our definitions there.
>
> I have alot of questions about your post, and hope you'll consider responding to some of them.
>
> If reason (according to Western philosphy, circa 17th century) is what elevates man above the beasts, and insane people are by definition bereft of reason, what does that make us in the eyes of society?
>
> Useless and dangerous subhuman brutes. Degenerate. Social wastage. These are direct quotes from 20th Centuray American politicians.
>
> Historically, the very existence of the insane threatens the existence of the normal, b/c philanthropy on our behalf uses up their resources, and b/c we might go after them w/ a hatchet if they take our seat on the subway.
>
> Beside the usual involuntary committments, lobotomies and incarceration, twentieth century American assaults on the insane have included forced sterilizations and prohibition from marriage.
>
> I am painfully aware of how these attitudes, these facts harm me, since I know that I do not pose a danger to anyone.
>
> Having said that, I have observed crazy people up close and at length who were fine until they murdered someone. I have also been near people who, while psychotic posed a threat to innocent victims, stopping just short of murder, and I have been frightened by someone experiencing a psychotic episode who no one, including myself could ever be afraid of otherwise. They became dangerous only during the psychosis.
>
> How does one reconcile all this?
>
> w/ respect, troubleHi Trouble. Here is how I think about "insanity." I believe insanity is a medical (Neurological) condition, nothing more and nothing less. Insanity is caused by a physically broken brain, not from vague, psychobabble concepts. I also believe insanity is heavily genetic...insanity tends to be passed along in families.
Because insanity is a Neurological (brain) disease, I believe insanity should be diagnosed and treated by brain science experts known as Neurologists. It should be researched in the same manner other diseases are researched, with microscopes, brain imaging equipment, blood tests, etc. Psychology based research is a waste of time and money. It leads nowhere but it makes the insane patient feel guilty about their medical condition by trivializing their condition, leading them on into thinking their problem is a "psychological" issue. When in reality these people are Neurologically impaired in a major way.
Because insanity typically insnt perceived as a formal Neurological disorder by the lay public, insane people are oftentimes treated like shit. Or with fear. When the reality is they just have a specific type of Neurological disease. Epileptics used to be thought of in a similar manner. Seizures used to be thought of as being caused by "evil spirits" and such and epileptics were treated like bad people, as crazy or as freaks. When the reality was recognized about a hundred years ago and epilepsy was recognized as a FORMAL Neurological disease, attitudes changed towards epileptics. I believe if "insanity" was recognized as a FORMAL Neurological disease, attitudes would dramatically change towards insane people.
Just read this article and it will basically describe how I personally feel about "insanity."
http://www.mhsource.com/pt/p020101b.html
Old School
Posted by ambrosialdelight on March 3, 2002, at 14:19:47
In reply to Re: Old School hornets nest, posted by OldSchool on February 25, 2002, at 11:38:51
I never heard that one before. Is there proof that insane people cannot reason or is this conjecture? Any studies on this?
Posted by trouble on March 3, 2002, at 17:48:01
In reply to insane people bereft of reason?!?!, posted by ambrosialdelight on March 3, 2002, at 14:19:47
Hey Ambrosiadelight,
I didn't cite references to that assertion, b/c I don't like to come off as a pedant, but as I said, most prevailing and pernicious theories regarding the insane can be traced to the teachings of the great English scientists and philisophers of the seventeenth century; John Locke, Issac Newton, Frances Bacon among others.
If you ask me to cite the particular volumes of work my dear I'll pack you a sleeping bag and send you off to the public library.
trouble
p.s. No it has never been "proven" that the insane are bereft of reason, most things can't be proved w/out hard science, and that usually involves things you can see under microscopes and so forth. Reason and insanity are concepts, thus the unending controversy surrounding them.
Wouldn't it be nice if the laws and practices of western civilization were based on the "studies" you allude to, unfortunately philosophy is the major culprit and I am way past pedantry now so I will humbly hit the dang submit post button-->>Insane people bereft of reason?!
I never heard that one before. Is there proof that insane people cannot reason or is this conjecture? Any studies on this?
Posted by ambrosialdelight on March 3, 2002, at 19:16:25
In reply to Re: insane people bereft of reason?!?!, posted by trouble on March 3, 2002, at 17:48:01
In other words it's a guess made by people who had the opportunity to write a bunch of stuff and become speudo famous. If we follow the path of science we know better than to assume these folks are right, with stuff being found later to be true only in "special cases" and all that. I'd much rather leave it as a question without an answer. I want a hundred insane people to tell me whether or not they are "bereft of reason" but then I probably wouldn't be entirely convinced by their personal testimonies, would you? Even if they were standing in front of you? And who knows their minds better? Certainly not you or me and probably not them either.
Posted by ambrosialdelight on March 3, 2002, at 19:41:29
In reply to Re: insane people bereft of reason?!?!, posted by trouble on March 3, 2002, at 17:48:01
Trouble,
This reminds me of a question that's been bothering me for a while and probably has to do with why I favor the non-answer. So naturally I am taking the liberty of asking your opinion:
If one is really "insane" to where you cannot communicate, you know to where the relationship between your mind and your "true" self is like that of a person in a comma. Are you aware of what is going on and are suffering in silence or are you blissfully ignorant? It frightens me to imagine the suffering if you are actually aware, worse than indefinite solitary confinement because you can see the sun. Also I am wondering what implications would the answer have in terms of euthanasia?
Posted by ambrosialdelight on March 3, 2002, at 22:14:02
In reply to Re: insane people bereft of reason?!?!, posted by trouble on March 3, 2002, at 17:48:01
the fact that we had that little exchange proves that insane people can reason. However, If we are insane then it does not proove anything. Can you prove that we are not insane? But if we are insane and are unaware of it then any proof of our sanity that we provide is naught. And if we were insane, then we would not try to prove our sanity unless we were unaware that we are insane.
Posted by trouble on March 4, 2002, at 1:56:28
In reply to Re: insane people bereft of reason?!?!-reminds me » trouble, posted by ambrosialdelight on March 3, 2002, at 19:41:29
> Trouble,
> This reminds me of a question that's been bothering me for a while and probably has to do with why I favor the non-answer. So naturally I am taking the liberty of asking your opinion:
> If one is really "insane" to where you cannot communicate, you know to where the relationship between your mind and your "true" self is like that of a person in a comma. Are you aware of what is going on and are suffering in silence or are you blissfully ignorant? It frightens me to imagine the suffering if you are actually aware, worse than indefinite solitary confinement because you can see the sun. Also I am wondering what implications would the answer have in terms of euthanasia?Ambrosiadelight,
I'm not sure I understand the question, but basically I don't believe insane people are unable to communicate, I believe the non-skilled, non-insane who make up their environment are unable to understand their language, even if the insane person is catatonic, which I consider a form of communication.
As for those "pseudo-famous" individuals mentioned in your previous post: I wish!
trouble
Posted by trouble on March 4, 2002, at 2:32:04
In reply to insane people are NOT bereft of reason?!?!, posted by ambrosialdelight on March 3, 2002, at 22:14:02
Ambrosiadelight,
I'm not quite clear on why this post was directed to me. As I said, hard science, being the standard of proof, renders these questions of proof of sanity philosophical, not scientific.
It is also important that one keeps in mind that "insanity" is a legal term, not psychological, though I toss it around a lot myself, for dramatic effect.
But was there something in that post I was unclear on? Perhaps your interest in this issue constitutes the generation of a brand new thread, since I don't see what more I can add to the present discussion, given its underpinnings. The only thing I can add to your post that I haven't already said refers to your last line, as I understood it. It is my opinion that insane people are not necessarily unaware that they are insane.
I also believe in "levels of awareness", ie human beings are often aware, despite protestations to the contrary, of threatening information about themeselves on deep levels, which are revealed in dreams and forgetting and slips and so on.On a personal note I am aware that I am at times psychotic, but that comes after the fact. During a psychosis I believe my perceptions are accurate, indeed, this is the very definition of "psychosis". So if "our little exchange" were to take place during a psychotic episode it would prove that in that moment I'd been bereft of reason, as to whether or not I was "insane" would be a matter for the courts to decide.
My own pdoc is a forensic psychiatrist, and thus considered an expert in the eyes of the law, and though he has pronounced me psychotic, he poo-poos my concerns regarding my sanity, as if to say, kid you should see what I see.
Gets complicated, no?trouble
> the fact that we had that little exchange proves that insane people can reason. However, If we are insane then it does not proove anything. Can you prove that we are not insane? But if we are insane and are unaware of it then any proof of our sanity that we provide is naught. And if we were insane, then we would not try to prove our sanity unless we were unaware that we are insane.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.