The way psychiatry treats those who deviate from the norm is akin to the outdated and unhelpful way that industry used to understand the assembly line—something that manufacturing started moving away from by the mid-20th century.
It was W. Edwards Deming, an American quality guru, who was pivotal in transforming manufacturing and quality management at that time.
When Deming came upon the American manufacturing scene, quality management basically amounted to one guy standing at the end of a production line sorting out good product from bad product. Good product was shipped. Bad product was either reworked to meet requirements or, if it couldn’t be reworked, it was discarded. At the time, it was common for management to blame the operators. Or the machines. Or the materials.
Deming responded, in so many words, “That’s not very clever. Look at the costs incurred each time nonconforming product is discovered only here at the end of the line. To produce this nonconforming product, you incurred the costs of labor, materials, and operating overhead. You will sink more labor, materials and operating overhead either reworking parts to bring them into conformity, or producing good product to replace the nonconforming product. And what of the opportunity cost? How much more product could we have produced if we weren’t playing catch-up? In a sense, you’ve lost three times every time you find nonconforming product at the end of the line.”
Deming’s suggestion was to move quality into the process. Focus upon the process itself to ensure product conformity. To ensure quality, don’t focus so much on product at the end of the line, but focus upon the processes that create the product, making them as effective and efficient as possible, ever improving them. Control the process to control the product.
Nonconformity is a systemic result. It’s not the fault of the operators, nor is it the fault of the parts themselves. When nonconforming product is discovered, its cause lies somewhere in the system. It’s the system itself that’s flawed.
“Every system is perfectly designed for its outputs.” Although these exact words may not have been uttered by Deming, this quote is often attributed to him because it so clearly sums up part of his teachings.
If a system produces nonconforming parts, the system didn’t merely allow the nonconformities to arise, it was effectively designed to produce those very results. The root cause exists somewhere in the system. By adjusting the system to account for and control the impacts of these causes, the system becomes more robust—now no longer susceptible to that particular source of variation or error.
Psychiatry, in its treatment of nonconforming human behavior, often mirrors the outdated manufacturing mindset. Behaviors that deviate from societal norms are frequently pathologized, framed as disorders to be fixed rather than expressions to be understood. By applying principles from quality management, psychiatry can learn to approach nonconformity in a more constructive and nuanced way.
Lessons from Manufacturing: Nonconformity Implies Systemic Errors
In psychiatry, we find a strikingly similar issue to that of early manufacturing: the treatment of nonconformity. Nonconforming behaviors are treated by psychiatry like early manufacturing treated nonconforming product. Just as nonconforming products were reworked without understanding the root cause, individuals exhibiting distressed behaviors are often treated in isolation, with little attention paid to the broader, systemic factors that shape and cause these behaviors.
Psychiatry, much like early manufacturing, too often focuses on reworking (treating) the individual to conform (fit into societal norms)—norms that have been shaped by human-made political, economic, social, and religious systems.
Much of the psychiatric field operates on the premise that individual behavior is a biological phenomenon. When a person exhibits distressed or “nonconforming” behaviors, they are often treated with medications, therapy, or other interventions aimed at alleviating symptoms and reworking the person into a state of conformity. This treatment approach mirrors the early manufacturing mindset—fixing the product without addressing the underlying systems that created the nonconformity in the first place.
While understanding a person’s biology and life experiences is crucial to an understanding of their behavior, this knowledge is elusive, never complete, and of little value in effectively addressing the root causes of the problems they face. Psychiatry tends to focus on the individual, assuming that the issue is with the person, and by treating the person, they are treating the problem—rather than looking to the person’s orbit, community, and beyond to the systems that shaped their development and behavior.
This approach is like simply reworking a nonconforming part without fully considering its root cause, satisfied merely with identifying and treating the observed nonconforming condition at hand.
Misguided Improvement Efforts
In a competitive world, improvement isn’t just nice, it’s necessary. The moment we quit improving our processes and products, there will be competitors who take market share with improved processes and products. Improvement is necessary for survival. Learning is necessary for improvement. Which brings up another gem from Dr. Deming: “Learning is not compulsory. Neither is survival.”
Though psychiatrists naturally want to improve, their improvement efforts seem focused on improving the ability to “diagnose and treat mental illness.” Accordingly, they strive to improve their ability to interact with individuals and understand the “symptoms” of the “mental illness” that need to be “treated.”
Psychiatry’s reliance on symptom-based classifications, as seen in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), parallels early manufacturing’s narrow focus on outputs rather than processes. In manufacturing, a nonconforming condition consists of a disparity between actual features of the manufactured part versus the specified requirements pertaining to that part. The specified requirements often appear on blueprints describing a conforming part. By applying tolerances for variation around the stated requirement, blueprints also identify conditions that would be considered nonconforming.
A part that is nonconforming can be made to conform to requirements by eliminating the nonconforming condition. For example, if requirements specify a part to be one inch long, with a tolerance of a quarter inch, and the actual part measures one and a half inches, the part is nonconforming. It can be reworked to meet those requirements by cutting off somewhere between a quarter inch and three quarters of an inch of material from one end. If it’s too short, then it gets relegated to the recycle bin. It can’t be reworked.
The DSM to psychiatrists is like the blueprint to manufacturers. It provides a basis for identifying nonconformity. Improvements to diagnostic capabilities would result in new, improved versions of the DSM—a tool that’s ever improving the ability to diagnose.
When it comes to treatment, the focus is on the nonconforming condition, eliminating that condition, thereby bringing the nonconforming part into conformity. Accordingly, they attempt to treat (rework) the person displaying that condition to where they no longer meet requirements to be classified as displaying symptoms (per the DSM). But this often fails, and people end up in “treatment” for the rest of their lives with no meaningful improvement—as if they are a manufactured part slated for perpetual rework.
Psychiatry tends to focus on the individual, assuming that the issue is with the person, and by treating the person, they are treating the problem—rather than looking to the person’s orbit, community, and systems that shaped their development and behavior. This approach is like simply reworking a nonconforming part without fully considering its cause, satisfied merely with identifying and treating the observed nonconforming condition at hand.
Improving treatments is like improving how we rework product. As if we are resigned to systemic nonconformity. We can get really good at reworking, ever improving our rework methods, but that approach will never address, fix, or even touch the systemic causes. Improvement efforts need to be applied to the broader systems of governance, not to the rework systems of psychiatry.
The Systemic Nature of Nonconforming Behaviors
The real wisdom that Deming’s principles offer psychiatry is the understanding that nonconforming behaviors are not isolated accidents but are the direct results of systemic causes. These causes are not resident in, or inherent within the individual; they are resident in the systems that surround and shape them. Just like nonconforming parts are the product of a flawed manufacturing system, distressed behaviors are the product of a flawed societal system (or collection of governing systems).
One might object that this approach is based on nonconforming parts—objects lacking brains—so these objects are understandably completely the result of their processing. In contrast, humans have brains, so we carry responsibility for our behavior. But human brains are objects, too, objects that are developed by biological processes and exposures to external forces over which an individual has no control.
ACE (Adverse Childhood Experiences) research underscores this conclusion. Exposure to enough adverse experiences during childhood can physically impact development of a person’s brain. People with high ACE scores encounter many troubles those unfamiliar with the research still attribute to the individual instead of the life experiences the person was exposed to. Nobody chose their trauma, yet a distressed person is often viewed as the cause of their own troubles. A distress person has a “mental illness” that must be “diagnosed” so it can be properly “treated.” Once cause is attributed to the person, so is treatment focused merely on the individual.
The societal systems that influence individuals—political, economic, social, and religious structures—are deeply ingrained and often oppressive. No longer is human development shaped by exposure to nature and natural systems, but increasingly by a human-made environment and systems. These human-made systems shape people’s biology, psychology, and behavior in ways that are often harmful, leading to the distress and dysfunction that psychiatry seeks to address.
When psychiatrists treat an individual’s behavior without addressing the systems that have shaped it, they are merely trying to rework the person to fit into a machine that’s inherently broken. They’re focusing on “symptom” management rather than systemic change. This approach, though it may offer temporary relief, does not address the root causes of the distress, just as merely reworking a nonconforming part doesn’t address the flaws in a production process.
The lesson from Deming is clear: to truly address nonconformity, we look to the system producing it. In psychiatry, this means recognizing that distressed behaviors are not the caused by the individual, but they are natural reactions to the oppressive circumstances they endure and the adverse conditions they developed under. The real long-term solution lies not in reworking the individual to fit into a flawed society but in transforming the broken systems that drive these reactions in the first place.
By shifting the focus from the individual to the person’s orbit, community, and the larger societal systems, psychiatry can move toward a more holistic and effective approach.
the reason we won’t ever figure out ‘mental illness’ is because according to society, mental health is basically defined as social and psychological conformity, but in truth such conformity undermines true health on every level and therefore is actually the basis for all mental illness. Otherwise we’d be free wild things an if anything tried to undermine our mental health, we’d tell dem, fuk you mate and beat our chest like I still do and is recommended as a tonic to wake the animal up. And then like a lion I go out and pick up a psychiatrist from Walmart (the brain has piggy-radar) and grab it by the throat and drag it under a tree for a free lunch. They’ve had plenty of free lunches on my brain – now it’s my turn.
Report comment
It’s a social construct produced by imposing expectations of uniformity upon masses of disparate individuals whose only connection is the fabricated, vacuous identity that was imposed upon them, misdefining them as a homogeneous group?
Report comment
Well put sir!
Report comment
And so people who don’t conform to the various norms established by a confused, group-think identity crisis are considered mentally ill?
Report comment
I didn’t quite say that – I said mental illnessis implicitly implies social and psychological conformity, and no one can deny that. Of course that doesn’t imply the reverse – that all psychological and social non-conformity is considered madness but it is often denigrated as much socially and casually if not professionally and academically.
Report comment
Agreed. Not all nonconforming behavior is “madness” but that denigration itself can be a powerful driver of “madness.”
Report comment
Kind of like a “veil of ignorance”.
Report comment
I’m sorry I brought it up. Rawl’s primary idea–that much injustice is the result of unjust rules–seems plausible. His idea of promoting justice by ensuring rules are fair in the first place, too, seems plausible. But I also disagreed with his way of getting there–the “state of original equality” and the “veil of ignorance.” But I used his set-up to consider an alternative to a veil, given his arrangement. I really didn’t expect such a lasting response and I’m sorry if you were somehow offended, Birdsong.
Report comment
Thanks Dan. Apologies are very nice but not necessary in your case.
You sound like an intelligent person, but I draw the line at letting a bunch of idiots tell others how to live as I see nothing fair in this arrangement at all.
Nevertheless, I don’t claim that things are anywhere near as fair as they should be.
Nevertheless, Rawl’s “veil of ignorance” sounds a lot like coercive psychiatry.
Report comment
Thanks, Birdsong. Rawls and his theory of justice came up in a course I took online (for free). I wrote that essay alluding to his ideas after taking the course.
Nobody was buying the veil idea, by the way. I’m sorry I didn’t do justice to his set-up. That was the more important part.
Anyway, although I gather you’re no fan of upper education (and I don’t disagree with you or anything like that), I hope you’ll consider this course. It explores the fundamentals of political philosophy, ethics, and justice in a non-stuffy, non-threatening, at-your-leisure kind of way.
I think you would eat it up. From some of the thoughtful, insightful, aware comments I’ve seen from you, I think you’d like this course. You’d kill it.
It’s called, “Justice.” It’s free and self-paced. And very cool. It’s almost like an extended TED talks. Only it’s a Harvard course.
https://pll.harvard.edu/course/justice
The guy who teaches the course happens to be among the world’s most relevant living philosophers. Michael Sandel. He doesn’t just stand up there and lecture. He’s incredibly lucid and understandable and engaging. He’s worth a listen. And, again, it’s free.
Report comment
During the course, Sandel offered a tidbit that stuck with with me because it seems to serve as an example of “inverse ACE” or “positive childhood experiences”:
He happens to throw in a little experiment. Having done it enough times before, he already knew what the result would be. He asked the lecture hall full of students, by show of hands, “How many of you (Harvard students) were the first-born?” or something like that.
It wasn’t just a lot or many—it seemed to be a clear most. After admitting that he, too, was first in birth order, he marveled at how something as seemingly trivial as birth order could have such a profound impact on opportunity and lived experience.
This anecdote can be linked to the concept of ACE by considering its inverse. Just as ACE are unchosen, often detrimental events that shape a person’s development, the circumstances of birth order are also unchosen and can be profoundly impactful. The first-born child logically receives more individual attention and may benefit from increased parental focus and resources compared to later-born siblings. This early-life advantage can be seen as a form of positive, unchosen experience—almost like an inverse of ACE—that helps shape the child’s personality, confidence, and potential success later in life.
It’s an example of how impactful factors beyond our control can influence our trajectory, for better or worse. While ACEs tend to leave lasting negative imprints, the positive experiences of the first-born, such as enhanced attention and leadership opportunities, illustrate that unchosen circumstances can also yield beneficial outcomes.
Report comment
Dan, thank you very much for suggesting the Justice course. I’ll definitely look into it as it sounds as though it might appeal to my essentially pragmatic mind.
I’ve heard of birth order theory and believe it affects everyone in some way to varying degrees; it seems to align a lot with attachment theory.
I don’t think anyone has to be a genius to understand that people are profoundly affected (on some level) by what happens in infancy and childhood — but all bets are off where psychiatry’s involved.
Report comment
When I read the article, I was reminded of Thomas Szasz’s thought that ‘mental illness is a myth’.. The article is important in this respect.. In order to understand ‘mental illnesses’, it is necessary to have a good understanding of ‘what the concept of ‘mind’ is and where it is located’.. If you think of the concept of ‘mind’ as being in the brain, then you have the assumption that ‘mental illnesses’ are also in the brain.. However… This is a false and dangerous theorem..
Namely… Neurologists and neurosurgeons have caused psychiatry to harm and kill millions of people by putting forward the assumption that ‘mind and mental illnesses are in the brain..’ So…
They became partners in psychiatry’s crime against humanity..
—–
If the mind and mental illnesses were in the brain, psychiatric medications would work.. Not just psychiatric medications, but illegal street drugs and other chemicals would also work.. But none of these (including psychiatric drugs) worked.. They couldn’t cure mental illness. (They couldn’t fix it).. On the contrary, they were not able to cure mental illnesses, instead they created them.. So..
(They caused a chemical imbalance in the brain. And so they caused natural psychological problems to become permanent.)
—-
In summary… Psychiatric drugs cause chemical brain damage and possibly related permanent mental illness.. (Natural psychological problems becoming permanent..) In addition, psychiatric drugs cause serious damage in to the human body.. And it causes their deaths.. Psychiatric medications do more harm than good..
In summary… ‘Mind and mental illnesses’ are not in the brain.. There is a brain in human but there is no mind in the brain.. If there were ‘mind’ in the brain, the brain would cure these mental illnesses on its own..
It actually cures.. But in a very different way.. Not with psychiatric drugs or other chemicals.. It repairs mental illnesses with a number of drug-free treatment methods.. Drug-free behavioral treatment methods such as behavioral therapies, forest and travel therapies, etc.. (Norway example, Stoira houses examples, etc..)
In summary.. Psychiatric medications and other harmful psychiatric treatments like ECT cannot treat mental illness.. It does not cure, it produces mental illnesses; (creates, creates).. And it does more harm.. It causes brain damage.. It also causes many diseases and deaths in the human body.. These are the things that psychiatry does not understand..
With my best wishes.. 🙂 Y.E. (Researcher blog writer (blogger))
Report comment
Thanks, Y.E. “There is a brain in human but there is no mind in the brain..” This idea reminds me of one of Richard Rorty’s. He wrote a book called, “Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature.” As a pragmatist and critic of dualism, he rejected the notion of a mind (or a soul). He, too, challenged the traditional idea that our minds are independent, inner entities that mirror an external reality. For him, the “mind” is not a separate, metaphysical substance but rather the result of our brain’s functioning—shaped by language, social practices, and historical context.
In this view, the concept of a mind or soul is a relic of dualistic thinking that unnecessarily divides our existence into mind and body. His perspective leaves little room for the notion of an independent mind or soul, as it emphasizes the continuity between our physical brains and our lived experience. So he would say we don’t have minds, but only brains.
Personally, I believe there’s more to it than we currently know. While I agree that we are shaped by our biological realities and lived experiences (which are not unrelated), I think there’s more to it than what can be reduced to matter fully explained and understood by modern science. To me, it seems like we (our brains) react to the world according to our “programming,” but we might also react to phenomena outside of what is detectable by the modern scientific apparatus. As Neil Young put it, “There’s more to the picture, than meets the eye. Hey, hey, my, my.”
Report comment
Hi.. Probably because Thomas Szasz thought like Richard Rorty, he might have defined the concept of ‘mind’ in this way. I look at the concept of ‘mind’ from a spiritual (religious) perspective. All religions know that the concept of ‘mind’ is in the ‘soul’. The psychiatry (and pharmaceutical) industry (and even the so-called scientific world) do not believe in the concept of ‘soul’. They claim that the concept of ‘mind’ is in the brain. Because, probably, ‘financial interests’ prevail in the so-called scientific world. And in this way, they fill people’s healthy brains with poison with ‘toxic psychiatric drugs’.
Thinkers such as Thomas Szasz and Richard Rorty look at the concept of ‘reason’ from a philosophical perspective. And as you say, being pragmatists and critics of dualism, they rejected the concept of mind (or soul). So.. They did not see ‘mind and soul’ as a metaphysical (spiritual dimension) substance.
But this view… In terms of the way the human body (and brain) works in the physical dimension (in the world).. It does not contain ‘context and validity’ on its own.. Because, here, a concept (entity) we call ‘energy’ comes into play. The concept of ‘energy’ seems to refute even the philosophical views on this subject.
And to understand this… It is necessary to understand the interaction between the human body and the soul. (Of course, first we need to believe. If we don’t believe, it won’t be possible to understand.)
——-
What is the ‘energy interaction’ between the human body and the Soul?
Probably, the human body (and all other living bodies in the universe) look like BIOLOGICAL ROBOTS, made up of pieces of flesh and bones.. (So are all kinds of ‘animal races’ and phenomena seen as ‘alien’. Aliens are also BIOLOGICAL ROBOTS made of flesh and bone.)
Where do we come from to this theory? Namely… Without the concept of ‘soul’, these biological robots are useless. These biological robots need ‘energy’ to be able to move in the ‘environment’ (i.e. anywhere in the world/universe) in the physical dimension.
(Just like SOPHIA, a mechanical robot… The thing that gives ‘life’ to SOPHIA mechanical robot is electricity; (energy).. What enables him to talk, think, walk and move is electronic devices; (mind).. Without these, the mechanical robot SOPHIA would be useless. It becomes a ‘scrap garbage heap’ consisting of iron piles.
“Energy does not come into being from nothing. There must be a source.” In summary.. Therefore… There is no such thing as ‘energy’ in these biological robots made of flesh and bone. The only condition for all biological robots (living bodies) consisting of pieces of flesh and bone in the universe to remain ‘alive’ (i.e. come to life) is that they need ‘energy’. Without energy, it is not possible for dead bodies (biological robots) to revive (come to life).
—–
So.. A critical question; “Where do these biological robots get their energy from?”
‘Energy is not something that comes from nothing.’ If there is energy in a substance, there must be a source of this energy. There is no energy without a source. (could it be possible?!) Not really possible..
So.. The ‘energy’ in living bodies (biological robots) must also have a source.. Since biological robots cannot come to life (i.e. come not to revive) without energy… Probably.. Biological robots made of flesh and bone must receive their energy from an object (i.e. a spiritual entity) that comes from the metaphysical (spiritual dimension) realm.
Where do we learn this from? We learn this from the heavenly religions. (Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other heavenly religions.. Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Shamanism etc.) Almost all religious themes (views) around the world mention the concept of a ‘soul’. It tells us that there is a soul in the human body (and that this soul) animates the human body. And they realize that with the departure of this soul from the human body, an event called ‘death’ occurs in the human body. (When the soul leaves the body, death occurs. In other words, when death occurs, the soul leaves the body. And the body becomes ‘lifeless’. The soul goes to where it came from (metaphysical/spiritual dimension). The body becomes soil (buried in the soil) and begins to decay.)
—-
So… Biological robots (living bodies made up of human, animal and other flesh and bone parts) need energy to come to life. (They cannot do this alone.) We know that that energy is the concept (being) we call ‘soul’. That is.. With the energy of the Spirit, inanimate biological robots (e.g. inanimate human bodies) come to life; (come to life)..
—
The emergence of the concept of ‘mind’.. So.. How do biological robots, animated by the energy of the soul, talk, think and move? This is where the concept we call ‘mind’ comes into play.. Can we consider a biological robot human body, which cannot come to life because it does not have energy, to have a ‘mind’?
So.. The concept we call ‘soul’ has an ‘energy’ as well as a ‘mind’. Souls have the feature of being able to think, speak and act both in the metaphysical (spiritual) dimension and in the physical dimension (anywhere in the world / universe). These characteristics are the emotional characteristics of the soul itself; (mental characteristics such as speaking, thinking and moving..) From these characteristics, we understand that the soul has a ‘mind’.
However… Souls cannot transfer these emotional characteristics to the outside environment (metaphysical and physical dimensions) on their own. The concept of ‘soul’ is not an object (being) that can be touched by hand and seen by eye. Since souls are not tangible or visible entities, they cannot transfer their emotional characteristics to the outside (metaphysical and physical environment). This situation is the same not only in the physical dimension (anywhere in the world and the universe), but also in the metaphysical dimension (in the spiritual dimension, in the afterlife). Souls cannot transfer their emotional (mental (mind)) characteristics to the outside environment, even in the metaphysical environment.
For this, it will need biological robots (made of flesh and bone parts) created to suit both the metaphysical and physical environment. (So… For example, a human body… An animal body… An alien body…)
——
So, how were the body (human body) and soul created? Because we believe in the concept of a Creator…
We can explain the description of ‘the creation of man (and the soul)’ as follows; (God the Creator first created the human body. But this human body is still lifeless. It must come to life. It needs to be revived. It cannot do this alone. Because he has no energy.)
The basic principle is; (There is no living matter without energy. No, it cannot be..) So… In order for it to come to life, the creator God must breathe it own spirit into the human body. And so it was. Thus, the human body was revived (came to life). The Creator God breathing His own spirit into the lifeless human body to revive it (come to life)… It shows us that the soul has a ‘mind’.
How do we come to this conclusion? When the human body becomes alive with the soul, ‘it begins to speak, think and move.’ (emotional (mental) characteristics of the soul).. Is it the brain or the soul that does these things? (Debatable..)
In our opinion.. If the brain (i.e. the human body) were to do these things, wouldn’t the brain need a natural energy source first? (This is also debatable..)
However.. There are some examples that show that there is no mind in the brain.. For example, if there was a ‘mind’ in the brain, wouldn’t psychiatric drugs treat ‘mental illnesses’? On the contrary, psychiatric drugs do not cure mental illnesses, they create them. They damage the brain; (They cause brain damage)..
For example, wouldn’t the brain fix ‘mental illnesses’ on its own? Yes, it does.. (But… Not with harmful psychiatric treatments like psychiatric drugs and ECT..) It can be corrected with non-drug treatment methods.
——
What do these mean?
Can you spot it?
1) If mental illnesses (or rather natural psychological problems) can be treated with non-drug treatments…
2) And if harmful psychiatric treatment methods, especially psychiatric drugs, such as ECT, etc., cause significant damage to the brain…
3) And the concept we call ‘soul’, (when the human body dies, it separates from the body and passes to another dimension and) if the human body also begins to decay (in the physical dimension)…
Don’t all of these show us that the concept called ‘mind’ is not actually in the brain, but on the contrary, in the person’s own soul? Isn’t that right?
——-
Let’s look at the issue from different perspectives.. Let’s understand in more detail.. What is the main function (task) of the brain (and body)?
The brain’s job is to help project the emotional characteristics of the soul outward (into the metaphysical and physical environment). There is a special connection between the brain (brain chemistry) and the soul. The soul uses the brain to transfer its emotional characteristics to the environment.
It controls the brain. There are nerves between the brain and the body. These nerves contain signals (messages, orders, commands) that enable the body to (speak, think and move). Communication between the brain and the body is achieved through these signals that move at a speed well below a second. The body (speaks, thinks and moves) with a message sent from the brain.
—-
The brain cannot produce this message on its own. (It cannot give orders and commands.) He has no authority to do this. Because, in order to do this, he needs an ‘energy’ and a concept (being) that we call ‘mind’. This energy and mind (intelligence) are only found in the soul. The soul, created as ‘integrated’ with the human body, controls the human brain. In this way, (via the brain) it also controls the body.
The soul that controls the brain produces ‘electrical signals’ in the brain nerves in order to transfer its own emotional characteristics to the environment. These signals also contain messages (orders, commands). For example… If the soul wants to ‘speak’, it first produces ‘speaking’ messages (orders, commands). And sends it to the brain nerves. (It does this in a fraction of a second..)
The brain nerves send these messages to the body nerves. Since the human head is also a body, the nerves in the body (head) send messages to the mouth nerves in the head. The message from the oral nerves goes to the muscles around the mouth and causes the muscles to move. This is probably how the ‘speaking’ reflex works. Presumably ‘hand, arm, foot, leg and other body movements’ work this way too.
From here, we can understand what the main function of the brain (and body) is. So.. From here we can understand that the human body (and brain) is a ‘biological robot’ created only to transfer the emotional characteristics of the soul to the external environment (metaphysical and physical dimensions).
The soul uses the human body (and brain) to transfer its emotional characteristics to the external environment. So.. First.. (It controls the brain.. Controls the body, in brain..) The soul controls the brain, enabling it to have the characteristics of the body (speaking, thinking and moving). These properties are emotional properties of the soul, not emotional properties of the human body.
However.. Since the soul and the human body are created as integrated with each other, this has led to the assumption that these emotional characteristics belong to the ‘human body’ (i.e., to man). This is what is wrong… Since the soul and the human body are created as integrated with each other…
It has been hypothesized that ‘mind and mental illnesses’ are also in the human body (i.e. the brain).
In the wrong way… This has led to people being given psychiatric drugs that damage their healthy brains (cause brain damage) and other harmful psychiatric treatments such as ECT.
—–
The emergence of natural psychological problems… And the transformation of natural psychological problems into permanent mental illnesses.. What are natural psychological problems?
Natural psychological problems and ‘mental illnesses’ seem to be the same concepts. And in fact, it is used that way. But… Natural psychological problems are of a very different nature from ‘permanent mental illnesses’.
We mentioned above that the soul uses the human body (and brain) to transfer its emotional characteristics to the external environment. There is a special communication and connection between the soul and the brain (brain chemistry). Brain chemistry disruption alone does not cause natural psychological problems. Here is…
In order for the soul to transfer its emotional characteristics to the environment in a healthy way…
1) The human body (especially the brain chemistry) needs to be healthy.
2) Apart (and distinct) from brain chemistry, the soul also needs to be ’emotionally’ healthy.
So…
a) If brain chemistry is disrupted, the soul cannot convey its emotional characteristics to the environment in a healthy way. This occurs through chemically induced brain damage. This chemical-induced brain damage can be treated by itself and/or with non-drug treatment methods as soon as the ‘chemical attacks’ end. But if it continues for a long time, this chemical brain damage can become permanent. And there is already plenty of evidence that this is the case. And in that way, because of the brain damage that becomes permanent, mental illnesses probably become permanent as well.
Disruption of brain chemistry occurs through certain chemicals administered to the brain from outside; For example, harmful psychiatric treatment practices that target the brain (and brain chemistry) such as psychiatric medications and ECT.. Other powerful chemicals that also target brain chemistry (chemically strong drinks, foods, gases, etc.)
All of these are ‘chemical factors’ that disrupt brain chemistry (the brain’s natural chemistry). If brain chemistry is disrupted due to these chemical factors, the soul cannot transfer its emotional characteristics to the environment in a healthy way.
b) If the soul is negatively affected ’emotionally’, the soul cannot transfer its emotional characteristics to the environment in a healthy way. The psyche is also affected ’emotionally’ due to chemically induced ‘brain damage’. And for this reason, it cannot convey his emotional characteristics to the outside environment in a healthy way.
However.. . In cases where there is no chemical-induced brain damage, it can cause the soul to not be able to convey its emotional characteristics in a healthy way.
For example… You witness something through sight and sound (audition) and when you experience SHOCK, you experience a trauma. The brain (and brain chemistry) is healthy, but due to the negative effects on the soul… The soul cannot transfer its emotional characteristics to the environment.
Here, we call the situation of not being able to convey the emotional characteristics of the soul ‘natural psychological problems’. ‘Natural psychological problems’ that arise from the psyche itself are very different from ‘mental illnesses’ that arise from chemically induced brain damage. It looks the same but it is actually different. One is chemical and the other is natural problems.
If you try to fix natural psychological problems with chemicals such as psychiatric drugs, you will make these natural psychological problems permanent. (Natural psychological problems becoming permanent..)
If you continue chemical brain damage for a long time, you will make the psychological problems caused by chemical brain damage permanent. (Psychological problems caused by chemical brain damage become permanent..)
—–
The important thing here, I suppose.. Existing natural psychological problems should never be attempted to be treated with chemicals. Psychiatric drugs… Make natural psychological problems permanent. It causes brain damage. Other psychiatric treatments such as ECT etc. are also harmful. They also cause permanent brain damage. It can make psychological problems permanent. Both psychiatric medications and other harmful psychiatric treatments such as ECT… It also causes various diseases and injuries in the body. It also causes deaths. And it does..
These are my views.. Conclusions I have drawn from my research on topics such as mental illnesses, the concept of mind, psychiatry, psychiatric drugs, pharmaceutical companies, etc… Conspiracy theory!!
Since there are no scientific studies on these, they can be seen as conspiracy theories. Probably.. (It is estimated that..) Millions of people around the world are silently being subjected to chemical lobotomies in their own homes, from psychiatric drugs, and no one even realizes it. There are those who become disabled, those who contract diseases, and even those who die silently. So to speak, if… They were left alone with the injureds (wounded) and the deads (dead). They were left alone. No one took care of them. And this is still going on. In front of the eyes of the world.. This is the situation.. Shame, really..
With my best wishes.. 🙂 Y.E (Researcher blog writer (blogger))
Report comment
Thanks, Y.E. I like your ideas about energy. Might a few thoughts about “energy” and “soul” resonate with you?:
I agree that it’s all energy at some point. All matter is composed of energy—the energy of its constituent atoms and subatomic particles. To me, living energy seems different from other forms of energy. Science tells us that all matter is composed of energy; the biochemical and electrical processes that animate our bodies are forms of energy we can measure and predict. But it’s not at all clear to me that the energy of life must necessarily be reducible to what science apprehends.
Those given to scientism assert that since science can’t prove the existence of a mind or soul, the mind and soul therefore don’t exist. In truth, science simply isn’t equipped to address the question, let alone answer it. Lack of scientific evidence isn’t evidence of “non-existence.”
Meanwhile, astronomers are chasing dark matter—something they can’t observe or measure, yet are certain exists because their calculations suggest it. And psychiatrists assert a chemical imbalance in the brain even though they can’t observe or measure it, yet they are certain it exists (the DSM tells them so?).
We know from molecular biology that, at the cellular level, the living force of a cell is divided during reproduction (mitosis). Although the result looks like multiplication, in the case of living energy it’s a division of that living energy. When a (living) cell divides, both resulting daughter cells are every bit as alive as the parent cell.
And while molecular biologists posit a common ancestor to our DNA-RNA-based life form—a last universal common ancestor (LUCA)—given the divisive nature of cellular reproduction, it seems plausible that every living cell on Earth today carries the same unbroken “life energy” that has divided and diversified over eons.
Although LUCA may have developed and lived alone, that original DNA-bearing cell didn’t die alone. LUCA became twins. By the time these original (physical) twin cells died, LUCA’s life force had moved on to new cells. LUCA and Gaia could be one and the same. And each of us is just a tiny, individual expression of this singular living being. Just a loose thought.
Anyway, with subatomic particles seemingly blinking into and out of existence all of the time—and knowing that energy cannot be destroyed—we accept that we don’t know where this energy goes when it blinks out of existence, or where it came from when it blinks in. It must come from and go somewhere.
We reject the notion that it just appears out of nowhere and disappears into nothing because of the natural law of the conservation of energy. And mainstream theories offer explanations without invoking mysterious parallel universes. (Not that I would understand them.) The energy of a human life (or the life of any living thing) is not like these subatomic particles seemingly blinking into and out of existence or at the fringes of our understanding.
We know where living energy came from (but only sort of). Did LUCA arise from biochemical-electrical happenstance? Was life transported here from elsewhere? If so, how did it start wherever it came from? We don’t know these things.
Yet all life forms that ever existed on Earth might be traced back to that first DNA-RNA-bearing cell. A positive connection to the chain of LUCA. (A Google search will reveal that it’s not just my wild idea.)
So, when a human being dies, what happens to that living energy that once animated the person’s body, the emergent energy directing countless living cells–what might be called a person’s mind, soul, or spirit—or qi (Chinese), prana (Sanskrit), or wanáɣi (Lakota)? Are we prepared to say it goes nowhere, or it “dissipates”, seemingly contrary to the law of energy conservation?
Regardless of whether there are parallel universes or not, why would we think that upon death, the very real energy that once animated a person’s body simply vanishes? That would violate the law of conservation of energy, which doesn’t seem very scientific. Or, might it obey the law in a different universe?
While many scientists explain life purely as an emergent property of complex biochemical interactions, cultural and philosophical traditions have long suggested that the energy of life is something more—a spark, a vital force, a consciousness that isn’t easily reducible to electrons and atoms and bioelectrical forces.
Report comment
Hi.. You are right.. These ideas also make sense.. When we talk about molecules, DNA, cells, etc.. That came to my mind.. Scientists need to answer this question; “If we remove the concept of soul, will the living body and other living entities inside the body (cells, DNA, etc.) continue to live?” I don’t know how realistic scientific experiments (and scientific data) are, but after a while the energies in them will disappear. (Maybe it does, we don’t know.)
The world of science is hiding many things from humanity. For example.. Probably.. They only present to the public (media) what they want to be known. They do not present to the public the things they do not want to be known (scientific experiment results, scientific data, etc.).
When we look at it from these perspectives.. How reliable are scientific experiments and other scientific data in the scientific world (especially in the medical world)? I don’t know anymore..
Probably.. If the scientific world were realistic, especially in terms of ‘human health’, it would not approve of psychiatry, which is causing so much harm to humanity today. They would not approve the use and continued use of psychiatric drugs that harm or even kill people.. Etc.. Etc..
Anyway.. It seems like this discussion is going to go on and on.. 🙂
With my best wishes.. Y.E.
Report comment
Another thought about the uniqueness of living energy: living systems appear unique in that they actively build, maintain, and repair themselves. Unlike mechanical or chemical energy, which follows external forces or dissipates, life directs its own processes toward self-sustaining complexity.
No other known form of energy does this that I’m aware of. This form of energy constructs its own vessel. Electricity doesn’t construct the wire it flows through; fire doesn’t build the logs it burns; kinetic energy doesn’t assemble the object in motion. But life—whatever fundamental principle underlies it—seems to contain an inherent drive not just to persist but to shape its own existence: adapting, evolving, and even self-replicating.
Many people might argue that life’s ability to construct and maintain itself is simply the result of natural selection refining molecular mechanisms over billions of years.
But this view still leaves deeper questions. DNA is a molecule, but why does it have the capacity to direct the construction of complex living “machines”? Chemical reactions happen everywhere, yet only in life do they persist in a way that builds and sustains an organism. The mechanistic explanation is solid, but does it fully capture why certain arrangements of matter lead to intentional, self-perpetuating systems?
Is life just chemistry following the rules, or does its organization imply an underlying principle we don’t yet fully understand?
Report comment
Hi Y.E. ~ Just wanted to say that what you’ve shared and continue to share resonates with me. I’ve enjoyed reading the exchanges between you and Dan about mind and brain, soul and energy, science and faith, and those who remain open and those who remain fixed in their intellectual beliefs and perspectives.
Truth-seeking can be a lonely and frustrating business. Sometimes it can feel as if we’re carrying the weight of the world around.
I think trickster energy as an aspect of our shared consciousness and connection likes to challenge our fixed perspectives in mysterious ways, waiting for just the right moment.
I’ve always been ‘sensitive’ and have learned to respect what I’m picking up on and where I’m being led. One morning years ago, a cable technician arrived to get us properly set up after losing our cable when our original landlord moved out of the building. It was a situation that required a lot of untangling.
I was still in my robe, so I hid out in our small apartment’s kitchen while he and my husband talked in the adjoining room about how best to address some of our ongoing issues. As I sat there listening (the technician sounded intelligent and affable), I suddenly *knew* he had a birthday coming up and that his grandmother wanted him to know she was thinking of him.
I left the kitchen and introduced myself. Then gently asked if he had a birthday coming up. Taken aback, he said yes. Then I asked if he had a grandmother who died and if he’d lived with her (new information). Yes again. Apparently, she’d raised him. He became emotional, something I understood. There was a lot more, but you get the idea.
At the end or our exchange, he told me that he’d NEVER believed before. But that now he did. I gave him Reiki to calm him down and he felt that too, which was another whole new experience for him.
Spirit works in mysterious ways.
Report comment
” . . . I think there’s more to it than what can be reduced to matter fully explained and understood by modern science. To me, it seems like we (our brains) react to the world according to our “programming,” but we might also react to phenomena outside of what is detectable by the modern scientific apparatus.”
Yes. That’s it exactly, Dan. I think the distinction you’re making is crucial to understanding the human psyche and experience, though I’d leave out the word “brains” in your statement, since it casts a too narrow net.
I’m not a scientist and have always thought more like a mystic, so for me there’s no question that consciousness isn’t created by matter, and that it connects each of us to everyone and everything else, including nature and other creatures.
Which isn’t to say that our brains and thoughts aren’t influenced by the effects of external influences in our environments and bodies.
This idea of consciousness itself as being independent of and yet made manifest in matter is something the mystics have always understood. Later, this is something theoretical physicists like Einstein, David Bohm and Wolfgang Pauli (who worked closely with Carl Jung) all realized as well.
Recently, I watched an interesting video featuring physicist and inventor Frederico Faggin talk about his own mystical experience of consciousness and takeaways related to quantum physics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FUFewGHLLg
The ideas he’s exploring aren’t new. The Carl Jung – Wolfgang Pauli collaboration confirmed Jung’s thoughts on the nature of synchronicity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXhs8bYL1bo
There’s a correlation between our ability to discern, differentiate and yet fully empathize (even with those we don’t personally know or know of) and our awareness of this unifying field of being and consciousness. My wording may be a little awkward. Some things are beyond words.
Report comment
Thanks Tree and Fruit. Some things are beyond words for me, too. [Incidentally, have you ever heard Noam Chomsky or Ronan Farrow talk? People like that make me wonder if anything is beyond words for some people.]
To me, it seems that scientism and hard determinism share a similar flavor. Both insist that the universe must—and can—be fully understood through our current scientific methods and apparatus. The idea that forces might be at work beyond our scientific observation and evidentiary requirements appears absurd to someone who believes that modern science can, and must, explain it all. Don’t get me wrong—I’m a big believer in science, but only as far as it responsibly takes us.
For a hard determinist to claim that all of world history, down to the minutest detail, is theoretically explainable in terms of Newtonian physics (and quantum mechanics) seems absurd. By this view, this chain of causation extends all the way back to the Big Bang, implying that all of history—and all lived experience—is reducible to phenomena entirely accessible to our scientific analysis, with no influence from phenomena beyond our current reach.
Meanwhile, those who lean toward scientism might insist that if there is no scientific evidence for something, then it simply isn’t so. If science can’t prove it, then it’s disproven—even if there’s equally no scientific evidence to prove the opposite. This stance appears scientifically egocentric, placing too much faith in the explanatory power of science and the necessity of its methods and certainty.
I have personal experiences that keep me from being a hard determinist, even though I’m a pretty firm determinist overall. Sometimes it’s incredibly difficult to internalize beliefs based solely on lived experiences one hasn’t encountered firsthand. Sometimes, you just have to experience something for yourself to truly believe or understand it. Without these experiences, I, too, might be a hard determinist.
So, while my own experiences have convinced me that there’s more to the picture than meets the eye, I don’t expect them to be impactful for anyone else. But I can at least share those experiences. Two of them are captured in the following essay, if you’re interested:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10-S7tGL4Se0dEQERnL6dcmL_USX5G8eN/view?usp=sharing
Report comment
I used to read/listen to a lot of folks, including Noam Chomsky, not sure about the other person you mentioned.
Chris Hedges played a major role in opening my eyes about what was really going on in the world. Another favorite go-to was the late, great, always insightful Glen Ford at Black Agenda Report.
And I agree, I don’t need science (or a scientist) to tell me I have a soul and that life is life, regardless of whether or not my soul is embodied. I do find the connection to quantum physics to be meaningful though. David Bohm, one of the physicists I mentioned (who was accused of being a communist but refused to testify), was brilliant and didn’t come across as being at all narcissistic or egocentric in his widening perspectives. I think you’d find him interesting.
I’m not a computer person but quantum physics also explains some of the dreams I’ve had, including one involving various combinations of 1 and 0 and another about fractals and repeating patterns in relationships.
One of the best definitions of narcissism is that it describes learned defense mechanisms (attitudes or behaviors) where empathy is either impaired or lacking and which seek to minimize, dismiss, negate, deflect and/or dissociate as a way to avoid facing reality and feelings of shame, guilt and/or worthlessness, replacing them with made-up versions of truth, reality and self.
Even a relatively benign narcissistic defense can result in delusional thinking.
Narcissism aside, we can learn to dissociate for other reasons too, including as a way to protect our psyches from harm during abuse and other traumatic events.
As far as determinism goes, maybe certain events and relationships *are* fated . . . but assuming we’re able, free will allows us to consciously choose *how* we respond/react to these experiences and *what*, if anything, we learn from them.
Thanks for the link, Dan. I’ll look forward to reading your essay.
Report comment
Thanks Tree and Fruit. I hope you like the essay. I mentioned Chomsky and Farrow because they never appear to struggle to express anything, even when discussing complex, intricate topics. I wish I could be so lucid and articulate.
I appreciate your insights. I had to ponder about your comment, because at first I was wondering if the suggestion is that my view on determinism, or my expression of it, comes across as being egocentric, fueled by narcissism, and perhaps in danger of becoming delusional. I’m hoping that’s not the case and I proceed under that assumption. 🙂
If the point is that self-assuredness can close us off to other viewpoints, I agree.
In that spirit, as I’ve mentioned, I’m merely a firm determinist. But I’m not rigid about it. I have no extra-informed position or inside knowledge on the matter. So intellectual humility keeps me from being too self-assured about it.
At the same time, I think our free will agency is much more limited than I used to think. More than just unknown external influences impacting our reality as a counterpoint to hard determinism, I also see some room for free will’s agency. Though largely determined, I can see where in certain (uncommon) cases or circumstances, a person might make real choices.
Maybe it’s kind of like Colossus’ explanation of “being a hero” in the movie Deadpool: “Four or five moments, that’s all it takes. To be a hero. Everyone thinks it’s a full-time job. Wake up a hero. Brush your teeth a hero. Go to work a hero. Not true. Over a lifetime, there are only 4 or 5 moments that really matter. Moments when you’re offered a choice. To make a sacrifice, conquer a flaw, save a friend… spare an enemy. In these moments, everything else falls away.”
Once in a while, life might offer certain unique circumstances in which our programming isn’t adequate, circumstances demanding real choice. It’s possible, too, that some people never encounter these circumstances during their lifetimes.
Also, I LIKE to think that we’re naturally programmed to be loving. When we defy that natural programming, we are responsible for those choices. By that idea, we are free to do what we “shouldn’t.”
Although this idea may seem far-fetched, there’s a book out there that’s not far off from it. In “Survival of the Friendliest: Understanding Our Origins and Rediscovering our Common Humanity,” Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods argue that our evolutionary success is largely due to our capacity for cooperation, empathy, and friendliness. This at least loosely aligns with my idea that our natural programming is one of love and connection.
Maybe it’s only when we act in a “loveless” way—by judging, gossiping, attacking, or oppressing others—that we deviate from that innate predisposition. And that’s on us. Yet here we are, governed by loveless systems, wondering what could be wrong. Again, just a few loose thoughts.
Report comment
The idea that our choices are limited to loveless ones might be called “selective determinism”? By that idea, we’re naturally programmed (“determined”) to be loving (cooperative, empathetic, and friendly) but we’re free (to choose) to override our natural programming by being loveless (selfish, oppressive, greedy, etc.).
Our systems promote and to a degree demand lovelessness (e.g., look-out-for-number-one selfishness and greed and obedience to crappy imposed norms). So lovelessness is so ubiquitous to seem “normal.” But maybe it’s not natural.
By this view, people are responsible for their choice to act lovelessly. On the other hand, acting in a loving way is merely following a disposition that’s been favored by evolution (and perhaps driving it?).
So a person doesn’t properly take credit for acting according to natural programming–they’re acting according to the predisposition of nature–but a person IS responsible for loveless choices and the results of their lovelessness (for overriding and acting contrary to nature).
Does that make sense?
Report comment
” . . . they never appear to struggle to express anything, even when discussing complex, intricate topics. I wish I could be so lucid and articulate.”
I hear you, Dan. Same here, at least now that I’m older. I can still express complex thoughts that don’t involve factual information when speaking, but it’s more difficult in writing.
Humbling as it is there’s a reason for that, I think. Words are symbols. They’re only meaningful when we fully embody their meaning, or when they’re combined in such a way as to transcend our natural limitations in perception, if only for a moment.
Today I had a phone conversation with someone about my sense of time as being non-linear, and why our deeper reflections, sorrows, regrets and resulting changes of mind, heart, perspectives and choices we make matter can have a healing effect, sending ripples all along the continuum stretching through time.
I don’t remember exactly what I said, but something about the way I said it resonated with this person.
I’ve had to accept that when it comes to retaining factual information —and though I remember its greater significance and meaning and continue to make the ever-widening connections and circles Emerson wrote about— specific names and details often escape me.
Especially now that I’m older and sometimes struggle in putting written thoughts together in a coherent way that does justice to them.
“Our systems promote and to a degree demand lovelessness (e.g., look-out-for-number-one selfishness and greed and obedience to crappy imposed norms). So lovelessness is so ubiquitous to seem “normal.” But maybe it’s not natural.”
Yes, what you’ve written makes sense. I’ve had these same thoughts.
You and I live in a world that’s supported by a system and culture wherein a series of loveless choices each of us makes each day to maintain a certain quality of life, or just to survive and sometimes just barely or not even survive, unintentionally harm others.
I can’t imagine a world without electricity and other modern conveniences.
For a long time, this thought left me despairing. Thankfully I’m not yet compelled to vote for the system itself, or those who serve it.
Most of us come into this world innocent, wanting to love and be loved. But then our families, cultures and the world bombard us with messages causing us to forget who we were before the world and womb and our forgetting.
Report comment
“Maybe it’s kind of like Colossus’ explanation of “being a hero” in the movie Deadpool: “Four or five moments, that’s all it takes. To be a hero. Everyone thinks it’s a full-time job. Wake up a hero. Brush your teeth a hero. Go to work a hero. Not true. Over a lifetime, there are only 4 or 5 moments that really matter. Moments when you’re offered a choice. To make a sacrifice, conquer a flaw, save a friend… spare an enemy. In these moments, everything else falls away.””
What if there are thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of moments when what we’ve thought, said or done could’ve made a small yet meaningful difference in our own or someone else’s life if only we’d understood and remembered what it means to be human. Choices are choices.
We spare an enemy every time we continue to privately wish someone well, distancing ourselves without depriving them of basic courtesies and without seeking revenge.
We save someone every time we meet some legitimate unmet need of a person or creature who’s crossed our path, whether this need is tangible or intangible, and no matter how small, and whether or not anyone else will ever know or is there to witness our act of kindness.
We save someone when we continue to love the people who’ve harmed us, taking full responsibility for our own ways of causing harm, choosing to forgive without giving anyone license to harm us again. And removing ourselves when we’re at risk of being harmed.
We save ourselves when we remember our innate worth as human beings, without feeling as if we have to throw ourselves away to earn someone’s love or approval through heroic acts of self-sacrifice that aren’t needed or necessary and which only perpetuate their lack of empathy and inflated sense of entitlement, and *possibly* our own.
I’ve been there myself.
Are you aware of the connection between Hollywood (including Marvel movies) and the Pentagon? It’s worth considering.
Report comment
Oops, almost forgot to respond to something else you said:
“I had to ponder about your comment, because at first I was wondering if the suggestion is that my view on determinism, or my expression of it, comes across as being egocentric, fueled by narcissism, and perhaps in danger of becoming delusional.”
No. I’m sorry if my comment came across that way. In and of itself, I don’t see determinism as being a reflection of narcissism in someone.
That said, I see narcissism differently, as existing along a continuum, one involving empathy, discernment, reality and the choices we make.
Most of us have been taught to think about it in a way that’s not particularly helpful, as if it’s always about someone out there whose attitudes and behaviors are more extreme. The DSM supports this narrow belief.
Ever read or listen to anything on Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s thoughts about the normalization of a kind of widespread moral/ethical stupidity during Hitler’s rise to power? Or Hannah Arendt on the “banality of evil”?
Years ago, I read something about how voting is the most violent act most people will ever commit.
Here’s a quote:
“Consequently, the government’s actions and the voters who legitimize them are linked together. Thus at a minimum, voters are spiritually involved in every act engaged in by the government. Including all violent acts. This involvement in the government’s violence isn’t, tempered by the nominal peacefulness of a person’s life apart from voting.”
~ Hans Sherrer
If you’re interested, here’s a link to the essay: https://forejustice.org/vote/voting_is_an_act_of_violence.htm
I’ve had to deal with my own stuff, Dan. And continue to deal with my stuff.
Report comment
While I agree that “Choices are choices,” I think much more often we make decisions (according to our programming) that we often regard as being made by independent free choice. I just think real choice is uncommon, and maybe limited to a certain circumstance, yet they have a lot of impact on future experiences (and decisions).
I have similar thoughts to yours about the utility of voting for a broken system. And about our collective complicity in much of the turmoil we endure. I have more ideas about both. Hit me up if interested. As you might have guessed, I’ve written a bit about each.
We’ve all had to deal with challenges of some kind, but no two set of life challenges are identical. Some of us have more to deal with than others and it’s common for others not to appreciate that. And we can bet whatever it is that hits the fan won’t be equally distributed. Hang in there, you’re not alone.
Report comment
Thanks, Dan. By “stuff”, I meant the ongoing process of recognizing and moving beyond my own limited narcissistic thinking and behaviors.
But you’re right. It’s all relative and probably wise not to compare our challenges. I’m blessed in that I’m able to reflect more deeply about the reasons behind the choices I’ve made throughout my life, whereas others don’t and maybe can’t.
I think this may have something to do with those of us who had at least one person in our lives who confirmed that what we were experiencing wasn’t okay or our fault.
In my life, it was a younger sibling I’d been responsible for as the oldest child. Their small voice probably saved me. It’s why I try to use my own small voice when I’m able.
Report comment
I broke one of my rules, which is to always vet my sources. I just discovered something about the author of the essay and quote I included I wish I’d known. If you could somehow delete that portion of my comment, it would be best for all concerned. Some of this author’s other books come across as blatantly ethnocentric and racist.
If you’d rather not delete portions of my comment, then go ahead and leave my comment unposted. I’ll copy it and can always repost the non-offending parts of it later.
Sorry, Dan.
Report comment
I was once on antipsychotics that a doctor had prescribed for what he described as “low mood and motivation” (I’d been constantly getting sick at the manual labour job I’d been working at since I was permanently kicked out of university for missing too many classes, a direct result of the previous doctor’s disastrous medication experiments.
The antipsychotics required a mandatory ten day hospital stay in order to safely titrate up.
One day during his rounds, the doc saw me intently drawing a sketch and asked me what I was working on.
“It’s a prototype for a continuously variable transmission for bicycles” I said.
“Do you think it will work?” He asked.
“I don’t know, but once I’m out of here I’d really like to work on it to find out.” I replied.
“Do you mind if I bring a few colleagues by your room to discuss it?” he asked.
“No, I guess not” I said.
And so during the lunch hour the next day they all squeezed into my hospital room to discuss the merits of my ideas.
The irony was completely lost on me in that moment, which is that I was in the hospital because the doctor had diagnosed me with “low motivation”, and yet here was a group of people seriously discussing the merits of an idea I had worked hard to develop, an idea that no unmotivated person could possibly have the energy to devise.
The only motivation I lacked was to throw my energy and talent away at a dead end job requiring no brains and a whole lot of compliance and conformity.
Report comment
Sorry, Mark. Damn. It seems the world isn’t good at recognizing the value of round pegs if they don’t fit neatly into square holes.
Report comment
Thank you Dan.
I really don’t like talking about this. I’m a very independent person who finds it difficult to admit that someone else could ruin my life – especially idiots like the doctor above who, when I angrily confronted him a couple years later, blurted out “I just don’t understand you because you’re a free spirit”.
Wow.
(I later found out he’s far from alone, btw.)
I force myself to talk because people need to know. They need to know that doctors routinely wing it with little thought given to the damage they might be doing, and that they may be in denial to any damage that is very clear to the patient and everyone around them. Writing here is the first step.
Report comment
I always appreciate your thoughtful contributions, Dan.
But I’d like to make what seems to me an important qualification and distinction surrounding “non-conforming” behaviors. Not to put too fine a point on your excellent analysis, here, but I suspect a significant percentage of mental health diagnoses are made not from “non-conforming” behaviors, but, rather from normal behaviors conforming to “informing and constraining” processes (experiences, relationships, events, and cumulative networks and effects therein). I know this is a bit of a semantic quarrel. But to use one example I’ve belabored here in the past -as cited from books, etc., is that when severely abused children receive an ADHD diagnosis because they are unable to sufficiently concentrate in the classroom (while actively and unabatedly being abused), not only are the behaviors of such children normal human response, but such psychiatric diagnosing and drugging is a form of (legitimized) structural violence. And though this is but one example of how normal behavioral responses are psychiatrically pathologized, its but the sliver at the tip of the psychiatric diagnostic iceberg. Unfortunately the diagnosing dynamic of this one “conforming behavior” seems to me to the rule rather than the exception. I apologize if I’ve misrepresented the gist of your theme? it’s just that I think we need to (better) critically distinguish between normal human responses arising from anomie and social injustice (forms of violence), and narratives of psychiatric fundamentalism…
Report comment
Kevin, thanks. I think I agree with you. What is considered nonconforming behavior can be questionable. My example might be: certain problems (e.g., depression) and behaviors (e.g., tobacco smoking) may not be prevalent in the general population. Some might consider smoking abnormal and in need of treatment to abate it.
It’s a fraction of the population that smokes, after all. Smoking is often regarded as undesirable, non-conforming behavior. It’s societally frowned upon. It’s subject to sin taxes. It carries health consequences (regardless of any relief or benefit it may provide to some more than others). Why, oh why, do smokers smoke?
Yet ACE researchers will tell us that smoking is not uncommon among those with a high ACE score. Those with a score of four are more than twice as likely to smoke as those with lower scores. The likelihood of smoking gets even higher as ACE scores increase. In a group of people with ACE scores of eight, smoking might be considered normal. And it’s normal for the world around them to punish them for it, too.
Report comment
Well….Dan, I really am unable to square my example with your reply; but so be it; no harm no foul!. But I will say that I find ACE to be yet another one of those psyho-linguistic swamps that suggest progress (i.e. recognizing ones biography, etc.). Yet, I’m strongly inclined to believe defer to the same old diagnostic DSM model and treatment modalities. My “point here” is that I suspect one’s “ACE” score is rarely met in clinical settings with a robust dialogical process grounded in one or more psycho-dynamic processes, by which said “ACE” score is translated through “a conscious relationship” using stories, metaphors, critical modalities, etc. I could be wrong? But in our complex adverse, techo-relationship oriented, utility fetish (etc!) society, such a processes is a tough haul unless one has big bucks and lots of time to scour for such a relationship..
Report comment
Kevin, I’m thinking we agree that not all behavior that’s treated or considered as nonconforming should be treated or considered as problematic or even nonconforming in the first place.
Does this seem better?: Although behavior or syndrome X may be regarded as nonconforming by the general public, the general public may not have experienced A, B, and C—which are known by a few to underly or cause syndrome X. So what’s regarded as abnormal by the general public is in reality normal for one who has experienced A, B, and C.
A guy I saw on a video here on MIA might have touched on the idea when he said to his audience, “Symptoms are reactions.” To ensure his point was at least heard, he told the audience to repeat those words with him: “Symptoms are reactions.”
Psych professionals think in terms of symptoms to be treated instead of reactions to be understood. The question of what is being reacted TO is never asked if treating the symptoms (or the illness) is the objective.
Does that clarify anything?
Report comment
Were on the same page Dan! Just coming at it from different points of reference.
Report comment