Madness1 is a human phenomenon. So are depression, mania, social anxiety, and other phenomena classified as mental disorders. After many years in which we have been accustomed to treating these mental states as organic illnesses, as medical conditions parallel to other medical conditions like diabetes or heart disease, this basic claim that it is a human phenomenon requires explanation and justification. Consequently, the claim that the treatment of mental health problems should be a treatment unique to human beings is also not self-evident in our time, and I will also give it space here.
First, the clear facts — most of what is defined as mental disorders does not exist in animals. Exceptions are phenomena at a basic level, such as what appears to be anxiety in response to stress or when animals are abused to the point of learned helplessness. This is of course not true for most diseases, most of which occur quite similarly in animals, and therefore it is easy to conduct experiments in which drugs or interventions are tested on animals. Cancer in a dog and cancer in a human are similar, as are various infections or arterial stenosis.
The most reasonable and immediate explanation for the difference mentioned between animals and humans is language. No animal thinks it is the Messiah, asks itself if it has a reason to get out of bed in the morning, and looks at its reflection in the mirror again and again and thinks it is too fat. All these phenomena are mediated by language, mediated by the effect of meaning and self-observation that language produces.
Mental development is also unique to humans. In the development of animals, we mainly talk about maturation, stages in which animals acquire abilities according to the development of their body and brain. As long as we create suitable conditions, there is no reason why a wolf, a crocodile, or a dolphin should not be “normal.” In a romantic view, one might think the same about people, that if only we give them a suitable environment that does not interfere, they will develop correctly. But even without particularly traumatic experiences, human development becomes complicated in a certain way for almost everyone. It is impossible to describe human development without a linguistic and cultural context.
See how complicated it is to define what is healthy and normal development, and accordingly to think about what abnormal development is. To begin to do this, we will already need to move away from simply relying on biological terms like maturation. In the description of mental development, we usually talk about developmental stages, stages within which our biological potential takes on a certain character and completes or does not complete certain achievements.
I will describe a few such theories, mainly psychoanalytic ones, with an attempt to understand the milestones and the desired and undesirable outcomes on the way to the coveted “normal.” We will mainly see how there is no paved path for humans on the way there.
Attachment theory emphasizes the early bond between the child and the mother or primary caregiver, and it claims that the attachment pattern of the infant and child — secure, avoidant, and insecure – has significant implications throughout life. This theory still has parallels in the animal world, as it has been shown that monkeys are also greatly affected by closeness and feeding in conditions of proximity. Erik Erikson described stages in human development — from trust versus mistrust in the first year, autonomy versus shame and doubt in the next two years, to integrity versus despair in the final stage of life. Each stage involves a complex drama and not a simple question, with a spectrum of possibilities for how the drama is resolved.
Freud emphasized how complex the development of human sexuality is and how deeply it affects all mental development. Freud emphasized the importance of recognizing the difference between the sexual aim (the action to which the drive is directed, such as gratification in a particular area) and the sexual object (the one to whom one is attracted), each of which can move on a very wide spectrum, so that the encounter between them is complex and creates an infinite range of variations of sexuality, attraction, and difficulties. Here too, the attempt to define normality is complex and almost impossible, as a person can experience themselves across a wide spectrum of sexual satisfactions and sexual identities, and also be attracted to a wide spectrum of genders and objects.
What is called sexual perversions is extremely complex, since the entire human sexual pattern is one big deviation from what in the animal world looks like normal sexual behavior: from stimulation by looking, touching, and kissing, to the multitude of stimuli that come with the exercise of power, voyeurism, pleasure from control or submission, etc., these are all behaviors unique to humans but deviate from the union of the genitals for the purpose of reproduction. One might think that these things are not related to the discussion of madness, but they are critical to understanding that the spectrum of the human mental field goes far beyond the biology of animals, and to understand it we need to delve into the fields of words and meaning and their complex interface with biology.
Further to understand the winding path towards normality, we will use another Freudian concept — the Oedipus complex. In a slightly exaggerated simplification, I will describe it as follows: the small child has strong impulses towards their parents, and even more typically towards the parent of the opposite sex. He wants all of them, only for herself or himself, all the time. Within this, the child feels herself, at least for a while, as the most perfect thing there is, as the one who brings complete happiness to the parent, as the one whose every movement excites and satisfies the parent.
This state of affairs can exist and even bring happiness, but over time it runs aground. The parent has other loves besides the child. Other children, a spouse, and even, God forbid, areas of interest and a profession that they really love. The child discovers with sadness that there are limits to the parent’s love and devotion, and also that she is much less perfect and funny than she thought. She also discovers that she may be punished for unrestrained expression of her impulses and that the other parent is much bigger and stronger than her.
The descent from the narcissistic childhood paradise is accompanied by much pain, which there is no way to skip and no paved way to do it. Everyone must find their own way with different ways to compensate and try to preserve something of the so pleasant feeling of self-worth that existed. The way Freud described for finding a way out of the Oedipus complex is the way of identification — I may be small and not worth much, but I am part of a really successful and valuable culture, more so than any other culture, a fan of a worthwhile football team, and my parents are really worthwhile. Through identification with the father or with the mother (or in a certain way with each of them) and especially with what they represent, that is, the tribe or society or culture they are part of, the child finds comfort in belonging and a sense of specialness that somewhat compensates for the lost narcissism.
Identification with the parent who also represents society, which in a footnote I will say occurs much less clearly in our time, has a normalizing effect. Whoever “buys” the values and codes of the society in which they live essentially receives a compass that tells them what is good and what is bad, how to behave and what they should not do. Of course, there is nothing objective here; these codes can in themselves be cruel, illogical, and immoral, but they unite a certain society and are adapted to what is accepted in that society. The child gradually becomes one of everyone.
According to Freud’s beautiful description, culture actually plants its agency within the child, which from now on and for the rest of their life will sit inside them and give them grades and evaluations on everything they do. “A garrison in a conquered city,” that is Freud’s analogy for the superego that is established in the child’s psyche. The establishment of the superego has a great psychological cost. The child loses something of their naturalness, of their freedom to express and be what they want, and begins to be a divided creature, which in a sense is always split between impulses and desires and prohibitions and rules, prohibitions and rules that no longer come only from the outside as in early childhood but sit deep within their psyche.
In recent years, a new concept has been established, “normopathy,” which is defined on Wikipedia as a pathological pursuit of conformity and social approval at the expense of individuality. From the other pole, one can look at madness, where the person is largely freed from social codes and approvals and thinks and exists in the most individual way possible. Of course, this is a spectrum on which we all find ourselves, between normopathy and madness, or in another conceptualization, between complete loss of authenticity and extreme authenticity.
By looking at this tension between normopathy and madness, and from the understanding that this tension resides within us, we can see how complicated it is to be human and how much human suffering and what is called mental psychopathology are complex and unique human phenomena. Erich Fromm describes this tension in his famous book Escape from Freedom when he shows how man wants to be free, but is also afraid of it because being free endangers him socially and puts him at risk of rejection and ostracism. One can see a version of this tension in adolescence, where the need for belonging and social conformity explodes and is also in tension with parents, and we see children very busy looking and thinking in the way that is most adapted to what they think is the socially correct way. We also see there the children who are not drawn into this thing and to some extent remain outside.
Would you want your child not to be drawn into this whirlpool of normality? The answer here is obviously personal, but it is certainly not simple. The children who are not drawn into this whirlpool can think independently, create and do beautiful things, but may also experience rejection and feel themselves for years as a foreign element in the world. Life and literature are full of many stories about such children, sometimes as heroes and sometimes as anti-heroes.
David Grossman describes such a child in the book The Book of Intimate Grammar. Aharon, who in childhood sails with a friend in the development of a private language and sees and feels the wounded and scratched adult world around him (mainly composed of holocaust survivors), fails to integrate with the entry into adolescence in the pressure cooker of normalization like his friends, and eventually falls.
In contrast, in the description of Steve Jobs’ life, one can see a very non-normative course of a child who does not fit into frameworks but receives support from his parents for this, and in early adulthood leaves studies and immerses himself in his own ideas with what seems like indifference to money and the accepted way to advance. Many pioneers are precisely those who were not swept deep into the current of conventional thinking, scientists and artists alike, but on the unpaved road there are also many risks.
Madness is the complete departure from social order. It is a state in which the tension between the accepted and the right and between self-expression and inner freedom collapses to one side, to the side of absolute freedom. Why does this happen? In “Neurosis and Psychosis,” Freud describes psychosis as a result of a “disturbance in the relations between the ego and the external world” and delusional thoughts and psychotic phenomena as an attempt at healing and as an attempt to bridge this gap. That is, the real problem in psychosis is not what we see as the phenomena of madness, but that there is an unbridgeable gap between the person and society, between the person and the world that surrounds her.
This gap characterizes not only madness but also other extreme mental states in which a person finds herself alone and feels or thinks very differently from everyone around her. One can think of various reasons for such a gap – traumas, a harmful society, a person with internal structures (innate or acquired) who is unable to accept the rules of society, or various random factors in a person’s life that led them to such a collision course. What is important in my view to see is that psychosis, and I think it can be said that also quite a few other difficult mental states, is closely related to loneliness and a deep difficulty in social integration in the world. It is no coincidence that many mad people are also homeless, because the fall from society and the cessation of functioning is such a deep characteristic of psychosis.
It is worth looking at the fall from society from two directions – on the one hand, one can look at the mad person as someone who rejects society, is unwilling to accept its codes and values, and on the other hand, see society as something that rejects the special person, the person who does not behave as it expects them to.
I think that an understanding of psychosis and other extreme mental states as phenomena closely related to the fall from society helps to direct us also to therapeutic responses that treat the social aspect as central. Freud’s conception, which sees delusional thoughts as patches that come to create a connection and relationship with the external world, also helps to shift the focus from “healing” this patch, these delusional thoughts, and to put at the center the coping with the rift with the external world, which is the real problem.
The medical conception of madness, which was mainly established from the beginning of the twentieth century, tried to conceptualize these states in a similar way to the conceptualization of physical illnesses. A very great effort was made to locate mental illnesses in brain tissue and to understand their physiology, and an even greater effort was made to find substances that would cure these “diseases.”
A disease was invented, the name that was eventually established for it is “schizophrenia,” and the theory that was established is that this disease lies behind the strong states of madness. The problem is that this disease has never been found. The brain evidence for it is very weak, and it is actually a title for phenomena and not an explanation of them. That is, we see that a person is mad and meets certain criteria, so we say that they have this disease. The validity of this diagnosis, like that of most psychiatric diagnoses, is very weak, and there is no real ability to draw reasonable boundaries between the various mental disorders.
There is a wealth of research showing the serious problems of this diagnostic method and the attempt to present a scientific appearance to their existence. For example, an article published in Nature with the title “On the Spectrum” shows that there are no genetic or other biological findings that support the separation between the different diagnoses, and when there are certain genes that are identified or certain brain patterns, they go beyond a specific diagnosis, integrate with additional genes that influence, and ultimately constitute one large spectrum of states.
In general, the psychiatric diagnostic system is extremely problematic. For example, with the release of the fifth edition of the accepted American psychiatric diagnostic manual — the DSM — Jose Brunner published an article in Hebrew that presents the ongoing crisis of psychiatry. He wrote regarding the manual:
“To this day, no sufficient biological basis has been found for the definitions of mental disorders that appear in it, and the effects of psychiatric drugs do not align with its definitions either. With the release of the fifth and updated edition of the book, it is clearer than ever that it lacks the necessary scientific validity, but also stands without a real alternative.”
To emphasize this claim, he quotes the head of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in the USA, who claims that there is no biological basis and no empirical basis at all for the DSM diagnoses, and therefore he urges researchers not to rely on these diagnoses for research purposes.
Ultimately, the journey through what we term “madness” and other complex mental states reveals a truth that is far richer and more intricate than a purely medical model can capture. By stepping back from the reductionist view of mental disorders as mere organic illnesses, we recognize them as profound human phenomena, deeply interwoven with language, culture, development, and our fundamental struggles with belonging and individuality.
This understanding challenges us to move beyond diagnostic labels that lack scientific validation and instead embrace a holistic perspective, acknowledging the inherent tension between our innate desires for freedom and our societal need for connection. Approaching mental distress with this broadened lens allows for therapeutic responses that prioritize the unique human experience, focusing on bridging the gaps between individuals and their world, and fostering genuine integration rather than simply “curing” symptoms. It is in this nuanced appreciation of the human mind’s vast spectrum that we can truly begin to address suffering and cultivate well-being.
This whole discussion is overthought, due to a lack of full information about the human psyche, the human mind, and human (and animal) experience.
Animals can “go crazy,” but it is true that language normally plays a small part or no part in their experience. If you ever get a chance to “talk” to some animals or look into the experience of animal communicators, you will get an idea of what is going on with animals.
What most “mental health professionals” lack is an insight into Spirit, the separability of spirit, mind and body, and of course past life experience. These facts of life would heavily influence any workable theory of mental health, and do. Without them, the “learned” members of this profession must try to squeeze the entire development of “mental illness” into one single childhood, which is a logical strain if not outright ridiculous.
We NEED progress in this field. We are seeing our planet being slowly destroyed due to our inability to check the development of “crazy” thinking. As a planetary people, we are in a sense becoming more and more suicidal. If we are to survive here, this must be stopped and reversed. And PhDs in clinical psychology seem entirely unable to lead us out of this.
I suggest we look elsewhere for workable answers.
Report comment
I agree with most of your answer. My take on the issue of “madness” and “psychosis” is that these terms are too often used to describe states that the vast majority of mental health professionals cannot possibly understand. The “medicalization” of Mind must be eliminated because Mind is filtered through, not created by the brain. And you are correct, the whole idea of Spirit has been suppressed and is now mostly lost and meaningless. Academic specialization is still an obstacle but even worse is that we (in the West) are empirical thinkers, depending on science and technology.
However, let us acknowledge that the author is making a concerted attempt to reimagine “madness” in searching for “a truth that is far richer and more intricate than a purely medical model can capture.”
Report comment
I might only add that all “empirical” really means is that one relies on observation and experimentation. Modern theories and practices that acknowledge Spirit and address it in therapy were developed using empirical methods. So we need not throw out these methods just because most of us refuse to apply them to things that are immaterial. Theoretical physics has looked deep into matter and found – in the end – basically nothing. So we know we have empirical methods that can deal with this level of reality.
I might go so far as to blame our failures in this regard on our superstitious or non-empirical thinking, rather than the other way around.
Report comment
Regardless of causes distress in anyone person, metabolic therapy is being proven to help all, specifically the medicinal form of reaching the state of high, sustained ketosis. See metabolicmind.org, their amazing youtube channel an d any podcast with doctors Chris Palmer or Georgia Ede
Report comment
It’s a dream, and I’m around one and a half. I’m in my mom’s lap wearing a t-shirt and no underpants. My dad is sitting next to us. My mom’s hand is on my erect penis, made so by her hand, but her fiddling with me cannot be seen under my shirt. I do not want her hand there, but I have no will at all to take her hand away. In the living room with us are many men, all coming from a big box against the wall. I can see the box, but it’s like what is happening in it is also happening in my living room. They are all happy and doing something together that makes them laugh a lot, and then the whole world of my living room changes, and the men are in some dark place, and one by one they die, and the feelings I have are the end of the world, and I just really want my mom’s hand off my penis, but I have no will of my own. I’m in abject despair. As the dream ends I become lucid and an observer of the scene and see it was a war movie we were watching, men going from boot camp to war, and I understand without the use of language how that important moment threw a big wrench into my ‘normal’ sexual development. Then I awake from the dream.
“Anything you do to a child it has the capacity to remember,” my muse. Boy do I hear sincerity in your words and thought. This is the second time I’ve come to your article, this time reading it like you are actually on the genuine search for truth, and, I might add, you are not promoting yourself, what I have had to examine in myself in posting a comment, since this set up is a bit like a classroom, and every kid that thinks they know the answer, and isn’t shy, is raising their hand sky high, and so inevitably something of that will slip in.
Can I just emphatically state that, basically, the ages from 0 to three determine humanity and have a lot to do with our mental health? Of course the years until we get a new set of front teeth are a wide open touch-ground and sounding board for the rest of our lives and also help make our break our world. And of course we can’t discount adolescence in making a better world. Can you talk about the world without talking about mental health?
One of the first things to see is that the infant and toddler’s world is a whole different consciousness than ours and meets the world differently, much more conjoined, why so much matters during that time. Who can remember that definitely? I can. There is within us another kind of immune system. It brings us to mental health. It’s not that you have to go through madness to get there, but you do have to let go of normal. Spiritual experience has a lot to do with it, and, starting from dream, you go deeper than dream. Eventually you have an inner therapist, and the above dream is an example of its method of therapy, in its beginning stages, but hold onto your hats folks because it has the power to usher in outer circumstances to mode your dream, to test you will and understanding. I don’t think Freud could conceive of a hands on higher power.
I’ve developed this inner healing capacity to a place it may now speak to others, and I sit or lay in inner vision about half my day, hearing voices and seeing visions. This is mostly an inner thing, and I write poem after poem and song after song, though not so many the latter. But I’m not just a total waste to those around me. I also run a household, take care of several people, dog people too, and that’s cooking, cleaning, shopping, and tending people, including kid people. So I’m busy, you know?
You are a very busy man of course, and I’ve learned that poetry has to be introduced to you not from the poet but from someone else, else you’re not likely to value it, but what’s a body to do? Start with this poem and read on, if you have the fancy too, and I think you will. https://harms-end.com/2025/07/03/the-name-in-poetry-you-and-me/
Report comment
I think it is interesting to consider the choice to be mad and crazy and experience psychosis and be like a schizophrenic.
I think the religious want to be like their messiah. Someone might want to be like Jesus but they only understand him from whatever they are taught and what they learn from religious books like the bible.
He is someone who is crazy by some standards of the understandings and definitions that you have mentioned. A man who had his own sense of right and wrong that was radically different to the consensus standards in his time in history fits one description of madness. A different ideology or belief system to that of everyone else is a form of madness. Crazy compassion is something that defined Jesus but he lived when psychiatry didn’t exist so brutal doctors didn’t ruin and destroy his life.
(Obviously madness is highly subjective. By crazy compassion I’m talking about radically different compassion to the compassion that existed two thousand years ago. There’s a range of things that are thought of as crazy, mad and symptoms of schizophrenia.)
He also experienced the power of the gods or god. He experienced an invisible supernatural force. He experienced communication with a supernatural force. These are some of the seeds of the creation of religions that are caused by psychosis.
(Mayan religions and Hinduism might have existed in different parts of the world in the time that Jesus lived. They were created by a different seed of religion but one seed is the experience of psychosis. The experience of communication, power, influence and control of an invisible supernatural force is seen by some as the experience of the gods. It’s also psychosis. Obviously there’s a wide range of mental phenomena and experiences described by the one word psychosis.)
Google AI mentions about Buddha “he left his palace, wife, and newborn son to wander as a homeless ascetic, giving up his royal robes and jewels” – this could easily be a choice seen as mad and crazy in his time in history but now Buddhists venerate this crazy and mad choice. They would want to be like Buddha.
I don’t know enough about Buddha and Buddhism to know if he experienced the direct power and influence of the gods by which I mean I don’t know if he faced psychosis as part of his spiritual awakening. I definitely see a significant change in Buddha from being prince to being pauper which can also be seen in some of those who are labelled with schizophrenia. (The prodromal stage of schizophrenia?) If psychiatry existed back in history then Buddha might have been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Then his life and value would have been destroyed.
The story of Abraham in the Torah and Old Testament certainly demonstrates the seed of religion of psychosis. He heard an invisible power or force telling him to kill his son. This is why I think that psychosis is one of the seeds of religion. It’s why throughout history and throughout the world there are different religions with different religious beliefs because of different seeds of religion. When countries like America, Japan and Australia were discovered by Western nations then there was already a religion that is fundamentally different to the Western religions. What is the seed of religion is what I’m talking about.
(It’s a long conversation about my experiences of psychosis and my belief in the existence of gods. In short, I was an atheist until psychosis changed my mind.)
I think it was Marius Romme in Accepting Voices who mentioned Western classifications of schizophrenia before the creation of psychiatry. He mentioned heresy, witchcraft, possession and canonisation as religious classifications of schizophrenia/madness/crazy that existed before psychiatry. Canonisation means becoming a saint. Those who are religious pray to and perhaps worship saints as well as messiahs.
Look up “WWJD” and in a way this is a choice about being like Jesus and making the same choices that he would make. But Christians cannot look beyond the information that they are given so they cannot understand that the choice to be like Jesus is a choice about being mad and crazy and experiencing psychosis. To want to be like him is a choice about being mad and crazy.
In a imprecise way I’m considering that there are those who might want to be crazy and experience psychosis. They don’t think about saints and messiahs as crazy, mad or consider that their saints and messiahs might be diagnosed with schizophrenia if they were born whenever and wherever psychiatry exists.
(The mad can be deeply compassionate and have crazy compassion and be far more able to have these qualities than those who are normal. Of course there’s a vast diversity of the mad so not all have these qualities. But in some ways the mad can excel where others cannot. Radically different compassion is easily considered as mad but if you see this as the difference of natural mental diversity then lives won’t be destroyed, and in fact you see a quality of the mad that you want everyone to have. I remember reading a dopamine study (I think it was in PLOS) that associated dopamine with (self reported) altruism. One of the defining characteristics of saints and messiahs is altruism and those who are religious want to be like them because of their altruism.)
Another example of choosing to be mad and crazy and experience psychosis is the use of illegal drugs. Intelligent and competent minds want to use drugs that affects the mind.
Illegal drugs and legal drugs can alter mental states and change behaviour thought and emotion. They can also change mental experience and create psychosis and hallucinations. The judgements of the external observer of madness, crazy, psychosis and schizophrenia can been seen after the use of illegal drugs. In a way some drug users and addicts are choosing to be crazy and mad and experience psychosis.
(I remember one study of the use of THC and external observers saw it creates symptoms of schizophrenia but those who use cannabis enjoy the internal mental experience.)
Who speaks on their behalf? Who stands up for their choices and freedom? This is why I have such a problem with mental health professionals.
The choice of users and addicts should be understood by psychologists so they can help recognise the positives and rewards of drug use and addiction. Why do users of illegal drugs break the law so that they can be happy and enjoy themselves and have better and amazing mental experiences? The pursuit of happiness is something that is important to understand and it’s essential to understand the diversity of the pursuit of happiness but do (most) psychologists think about anything else but mental illness? Who speaks on behalf of those who are like me? Those who have a prejudice against drug addicts so they only have negative thinking about addicts and addiction speak on my behalf? No.
Understanding the choice versus oppressing the choices of users of illegal drugs is defined by the severe prejudice and negative thinking of many psychologists (and others) throughout the history of the existence of psychology. A positive choice is defended but a negative choice is treated. But without understanding the choice then it is just prejudice against drug users and addicts that defines the purported sense of care of (many) psychiatrists and psychologists.
(Criminalisation of illegal drugs for the mind is based on solely seeing risks not seeing rewards and the positives. Drugs for the mind can do so many things. They can enhance things like intelligence or creativity or make someone feel love and do so many other things. Prejudice and negative thinking prevents the recognition of the positives and value and all the possibilities of drug freedom. Positive choices are defended not treated but to prejudice prevents understanding. The problem with psychologists and other mental health professionals is their negative thinking but who recognises the problem with themselves and their profession?)
Who speaks on their behalf who sees mental illness? In fact they’re pursuing their happiness and they are choosing to have better mental experiences and the amazing mental experiences that only illegal drugs can create. Their choices, needs, pursuit of happiness, liberty and other things are prejudiced against.
(I see doctors forcing drug addictions to things like antipsychotics. I do understand why victims refuse this. I believe in drug freedom.)
In a very poor, imprecise and tenuous way I’m trying to challenge the prejudices against madness and being crazy and psychosis by thinking about these two things that I’ve mentioned earlier. I’m saying that there are some who choose without knowing what madness and schizophrenia truly means but there is definitely a choice to want to be crazy and mad and be like someone who is labelled with schizophrenia. Some do make a choice to experience things that doctors see as schizophrenia and psychosis. Perhaps there’s something positive and valuable in being mad and crazy and experiencing psychosis and being schizophrenic that’s not been recognised because of the negative thinking of many psychiatrists and psychologists?
Let me segue into talking a bit about another problem with the existence of psychiatry and seeing mental illness. (This is a completely different point to the points I’ve mentioned earlier.)
The problem is that the lives of those who are like me are destroyed and ruined for brutal doctors and the rest of the monsters who call themselves the human race to serve their self interests. There are always other choices but there’s no need to make other choices because the human race are like animals in how much they are devoid of compassion and the capacity to be humane.
(I face a monstrous sense of care because human nature is monstrous. That’s why I call them the monsters who call themselves the human race.)
The problems with being normal begin in childhood but everyone who sees mental illness hasn’t bothered to see the problems with being normal. The problems cannot be fixed if they cannot be recognised – that’s going to ruin future of the human race. They don’t see the problems with what they are doing to those who are like me because they are devoid of compassion and the capacity to be humane just like animals are – this begins in childhood and it’s always ruined the past and present. It will ruin their future if they cannot become humane and compassionate to those who are like me.
I need you to know the truth which is that there’s so much compassion that is yet to be created and exist for the first time in history. We’re all worse off when this compassion is centuries and millennia away from existing. If the problems with the current compassion and also the problems with being normal are not recognised then there’s going to be no progress.
There’s lifetimes of work towards becoming humane and compassionate yet to be done. The problems with being normal need to be fixed to begin to advance the progress of compassion. The problems cannot be fixed if they cannot be recognised by those who purport to be the experts in care and compassion.
(You and I should recognise one truth very clearly. The existence of psychiatry and seeing mental illness has destroyed any and all hope of the monsters who call themselves the human race becoming humane. A false basis for care created in the self interests of brutal doctors is the best basis for care that the monsters who call themselves the human race have ever achieved – that’s the value of the existence of psychiatry and seeing mental illness. Every competent mind recognises the unbearable consequences of the existence of psychiatry and seeing mental illness. The belief in brain defects defines the meaning of mental illness and the consequences. Its existence has prevented the creation of new compassion, rational compassion and humane compassion for suicidal individuals and other victims of too much mental pain. Too many are born like animals – devoid of compassion and the capacity to be humane – so they cannot recognise the unbearable consequences of the existence of psychiatry and seeing mental illness. So many are suffering but it’s preventable and avoidable suffering that’s being inflicted because the existence of psychiatry and seeing mental illness has prevented the creation of compassion for suicidal individuals and other victims of mental pain. This defines how everyone thinks about my self interests and theirs.)
(What is the definition of human value and deficits? Good question. I still see many psychologists who work to recognise everything wrong with the minds and beings of the victims of psychiatry but do not work to recognise everything wrong with those who are considered to be normal. Psychologists haven’t freed themselves from the concept of mental illness. They still want to treat but always based on the concept of mental illness. What’s wrong with being normal? The question begins the recognition of the problems with all types of mental diversity. What I mean is that I see the span and gamut of natural mental diversity that includes the mad – they’re all full of positives and negatives. But the concept of mental illness demarcates between natural mental diversity and mental illness and this defines the work of many psychologists (What is the definition of normal? Being seen as part of natural mental diversity is a definition of normal.) The research into the problems with everyone – including everyone who is “normal” – is neither the purpose of psychiatry or psychology yet. The choice about who needs treatment to change them is still the same because many psychologists and others haven’t freed themselves from the concept of mental illness. The problems cannot be fixed until they are recognised. The problems with being normal are the problems of being like animals in their competency to be compassionate to the victims of psychiatry and humane in their response to the pain of the victims of psychiatry (mental pain). So much needs to change to become humane but so much that mental health professionals do is focused on fixing and treating the victims of psychiatry and they don’t recognise the problems with being normal. Their negative thinking has to used on those who are normal. The problems cannot be fixed if they cannot be recognised but those who see mental illness only seek to prove everything wrong with those who they see as mentally and that’s all they care about treating. There’s lifetimes of work towards becoming humane and compassionate yet to be done but this depends on recognising the problems with being normal. I’m not suggesting the solutions but I’m talking about recognising the problems with being normal.)
Report comment