Saturday, May 21, 2022

Comments by Daiphanous Weeping

Showing 100 of 501 comments. Show all.

  • Evidence base is flawed. The very idea of placing any certainty in it is flawed. We do not know what we do not yet know. So why use evidence base to undermine some other stack of evidence base.

    In a jungle you accept the shaman’s leafy mulch in a cup and knock it back with no evidence base and fly off to instant healing. People have been living without evidence base for millennia. People have become slaves to data. Because they place too much “faith” in “facts”.

    I prefer meeting people who say thry do not have a clue what makes me tick. People with no evidence of who they think I am. That way I get to be the knower of my own evidence of who I am.

  • I agree with Joshua that something does not feel fine about this. Some do not want nor need to disclose their inner selves to total strangers in an office. Some fear that disclosure not being treated as belonging only to the discloser. I resonate with this sense of betrayal but for me it is more like having my choice to know I am schizophrenic used against me by psychiatry and psychotherapy and even by antipsychiatry. Some would seize on the schizophrenia bit and say that that got given to me after I had disclosed. Here I disagree. Nobody gave me schizophrenia. It is what it is. How dare some “educator” in an office who does not have the ill sensations that I battle with try to “educate” me about what I know my own hallucinations or beliefs are.

    Leave me alone!

    I am not pleased at all by the common habit of speaking of depression or suicidality or eating disorders in the same article as schizophrenia, conveying the impression they are all one and the same state of suffering. Bladder cancer is not liver disease. It is as if “consensus opinion” in its little office is misusing the paradigm of the holistic focus on the entirety of the body to justify dismissing what an individual says is happening to a discrete area of their own body. Healthcare is being politicised like usual. I am for the individual not having to read like a “right” or “wrong” ideology or a “favourable” or “unfavourable” book but their own selves, how THEY CHOOSE see themselves.

    I need NO education. I need acceptance. Stop selling me “education” as if it is “my acceptance”. Stop policing my acceptance. Which really means policing my own feelings.

    I wrote an email into the Phelps interview, as we were all invited to do. It got rejected. In my email I was asking to build a bridge. A bridge between all our many various differences. A bridge is MUTUAL education.

  • A lovely clear article, Karin. I like the belief that is trans. Being as I see everything as many wonderful choices of beliefs. I see being straight as a belief too. Whole of existence, one great big party of beliefs. This is because I believe all humans are in a dreamstate without having the slightest awareness they are all inhabiting a communal dream or mirage. Actual dreams are intensely liberating because in the middle of the night you can believe whatever you like to believe and choose to be whoever you choose to be. In actual dreams people are seldom “logical”. This is because dreaming is a great healing shut down of the analytical mind, to rest it. But more importantly the function of dreaming is to let “feelings” rule the roost at last.

    There are no “right” or “wrong” feelings. Which is why we like going to our world of sleep to live in more than hectic modern day life. You can dress how you like in dreams, you can go nude. You can be anyone you want to be in dreams. So, I like how the trans movement are bringing the acceptance of feelings out into the real world that thinks it is real but is but another dream.

  • I respect that the author does not have a belief that there are chemical imbalances that can cause mental disturbances, even though iatrogenic damage seems to do so rather easily. I am not able to share the author’s belief that I do not have a chemical imbalance. My belief is that I do. We used to have no proof that black holes exist or other habitable planets outside of our solar system. The snail’s pace of human science is embarrassingly slow. Which is why we are still given pill treatments that do not work.
    We do not yet know what consciousness is, and whether it is knitted into the anatomy or cells of the brain or not. So we know not whether consciousness is physical. We barley can say with confidence what physical really means on a quantum mechanics level. Perhaps nothing is real. Not even chemical imbalances, nor iatrogenic harm. But it is nice to have a consoling idea of what is causing a sense of illness. But to me that is like choosing whatever lore you like. Whatever myth supports your own notion of healing. For many it means having a belief that there is no chemical imbalance. For many it means believing there is one. Particularly those whose chemicals went disrupted by medications not fit to remove fat from a frying pan.

    Having a belief that you do have a chemical imbalance ought not to make you a second class citizen. Whatever belief you have no matter how bizarre or even dare I say it schizophrenic ought not to be a ticket to instant purda. A new kind of virtual asylum.

    A top notch psychiatrist can breezily say that I do not have a chemical imbalance. I would want to say prove it. Prove no chemical in my brain is causing me to hallucinate night and day. Puppets on strings never pause and ask themselves how they know the things they know about complete strangers for certain.

    I noted that the conference has no seat for a speaker who does believe in the chemical imbalance theory.

    If any conference is not going to listen to people’s lived experiences…all people…then the conference may be just in the ambition of wanting to shut down the psychiatric refinery without putting ANYTHING healing in its place.

    In life generally, where ever I go, I am not sure what all the fuss with posh top notch conferences is. Invariably it sets up a tray of sandwiches for “the healers”.

    I like everyone on the conference list. I truly do. But I would prefer to see the mic handed to someone off the rails with anxiety or churned up with euphoria or talking in tongues to voices.

  • Loved that glorious book in the 1990’s.

    I wonder if it is a bit simplistic to say “there is the good way” and “there is the bad way”. Clearly people get stuck oftentimes in the bad way for them. We all know that if we eat forest berries and sing around a camp fire and idle in our beds all day this will do us good. We know it.

    But we know it on an “intellectual level”. Divorced from “feeling the need in it”.

    This is not at all a disappointment in the book. It is a wholehearted recognition of its vital importance. It is a book that says “live this way”. But who it is read by cannot hear that message fully because they cannot hear their own cries for this paradise of self acceptance.

    As such all these beautiful nature books can be a litmus test of who needs healing the most. It is not the nature lovers.

    If you cannot “howl” then you cannot be as free as the howling wind.

    If you cannot “cry” then you cannot be as free as the weeping rain.

    Neither the wind nor the rain explain why they are the wind or the rain.

    I often speak of love. But really there is not this one thing called love. There are nine billion loves. All of them uniquely different. We all share space on this mudball planet that each of us calls “my home”. But really it is a shared home. Shared with all the other versions of love. Many of which may be an affront to yours. What “feels” like love to me may “feel” like an overly sentimental imposition to someone in a suit. Or someone who likes to party all night. Or someone who likes to rant and rage at injustice. There are many forms of love. Some love nature but others eschew it and like the streets of their mind to be linear and straight. It would be loveless to hate those whose notion of love is a little different in degree or choices. If we are to see “free choice” as holy, and “free choice” as integral to “feelings” such as the “feeling” of love, then we ought to accept a less narrow definition of love, so that it embraces all.

    All Are Equal.

    But no “free choice” should be destructive or abusive or cruel or despicable to other people’s “free choice”, such as their choice to have vegetables growing in land that came to them by their ancestors. All “free choice” and all many forms of “loving the world” we share are harmless. But when bullying seeks to push an agenda of the “correct” choice on everyone then it is no longer “a free choice” they are championing….it is tyranny.

    The wilful destruction of the natural environment and organic ways that humans live in harmony with it is such a tyranny.

    That said, I do not think individuals deliberately set out to push their choices or become bullying in their choices. All bullying is from a restless deep UPSET at being disconnected from “emotions”.

  • I am very against drugging any pregnant woman.

    Quite apart from developmental compromises that may occur to unborn babies there is a possibility they might experience withdrawal syndrome after they are born. Anyone who has had that experience, especially withdrawal from antipsychotics, knows how horrendous those first few MONTHS are. I can imagine how terrifying it would be for a newborn to try to cope with. I beg any obstetrician or paediatrician to inject themselves with raw adrenalin every hour for twenty four hours to get an inkling of how withdrawing neonate small individuals may be suffering.

    Plus a screaming baby for months on end may not lead to the best endearing introduction to motherly love.

    Especially not if the mother is also experiencing turbulent withdrawal agony.

    But it is all good and well looking at the poison in the well whilst not understanding why pregnant mothers are so despairing in the first place. And where are the alternatives to popping a pill whilst popping babies?

    I am not going to blame doctors. Most pregnant women ask and ask and ask for “something” to take the edge off encroaching overwhelming motherhood. Particularly those locked in supposed “relationships” that have a six foot baby already.

  • Dear Joshua,

    Thankyou for your kind concern.

    I have not been convinced that I have a disease. I know it for myself. I find it as patronizing to have strangers try to tell me I am too idiotic to spot propaganda. This has often been the hallmark of the propagandist themselves, who is eager to let everyone know that not only were they sold a doozy of a yarn but that they need a new outsider to “logically explain” what their real “feelings” really SHOULD be.

    There are NO SHOULD “feelings”. Feelings just are.

    If you were a visitor to my typical week you would see me writhing several times a day exactly like this woman in a blue swimsuit in the emergency department in this youtube documentary. At 39 seconds into this film you will see someone who looks identical to how I look while I am hallucinating the ghastly sensation of thousands of wasps blizzarding around inside my body and all over my skin. Even when I am not physically writhing I am anxiously anticipating the whole fenzy violently swarming up all over again, during sipping a coffee, or during having a bath, or during a phonecall, or trying to go beyond my front door to buy food, yes actual food to eat. If I have glaring spelling mistakes or odd ways of finishing comments it is because I cannot endure writing anymore sentences in that moment because behind the scenes I am so frustrated by the hourly intrusive hallucinations that I want to hurl the table that I am writing on out of a window. Many comments have been erased because I weep at being given disturbances whilst composing them. It has been my observation that I can tell some people about these private hells of mine and meet with a bit of care, but other people seem to get off on the prurient details with near fetishistic relish. Why this is the case might be because they believe their own suffering is more important and so anyone elses must be minimized or trashed as not viable or believeable. It may also be the case that their suffering really is abhorrent but so much so that they have fled their own sticken capacity to “feel” those feelings. This brings a survivors heroism to bear in them but it may have rendered them so unable to “emotionally” connect with their own “feeling” of rage or loss or grief that they must live vicariously on the details of rage or loss or grief and all the doomy suffering expressed in the tears on other people’s crumpled faces. People complain that psychiatrists are like that, staring woodenly whilst asking you to repeatedly describe in minute detail all the things you need to do in a day to not die. As if the psychiatrist “logically relates” to your terrified bravery.

    Actually I must be lucky because of all the twenty plus psychiatrists that I have met all of them were compassionate towards me. Not one was into being a colloseum spectator of my unravelling. Not one was into pumping me for more and more gratuitous “proof” or “evidence” or “logical explanation” for my “feelings”. That has been MY experience. I will not lie about it. Neither should anyone lie about their negative or even brutal experiences with their psychiatrist.

    Let me return to this notion that some people only listen as a means to vicariously get to live through your honest and open “feelings” of distress. ANYONE can be a bully in that way. ANYONE can listen in that not really hearing you way. And ANYONE can nod and nod as if “relating” to you finally. Finally after you have spent months in comments “explaining to their need for a rational explanation” just how agonized your existence is. They can finally judge you and say they are “relating” to what you say.

    But “relating” is not loving. A toddler in distress does not want their mother to “relate” to their howling. Even the World War 2 Nazi’s could “feelinglessly” work in a little wooden “relating” from time to time. Just to touch base nostalgically with a “feeling” of inner anguish. Puppets on strings give up their connection to their own emotions in order to seek the answer found in subservience to a winner of an ideology. But it can leave them vulnerable to becoming both victims of bullying and bullies themselves, ever telling people how their “own feelings” are not valid. I cannot decide who is more needful of pity. The genuinely ill suffering ones or the ones who have swapped their emotions for a worthy cause and have “no feelings whatsoever” and live a life of misery because they cannot access enriching feelings like sadness, anger, joy and cheerfulness. Instead, flee “feelings” and live a life where they must be “right”. Right about “you”. Right about “me”. In a manner of…

    “I know what you are REALLY feeling and it isn’t mental illness”.

  • I have been keeping something from you. All of my fans.

    I do not have any fans. A month ago the angels and I were chatting and I said rather forlornly…

    “People do not seem to hear me on the comments section”.

    To which one of the angels replied to me…

    “It is because they think you are mentally ill”.

    I fell about laughing that a site for antipsychiatry would find me too nutty.

    I have been at pains to get people to listen more to the mad than the “logical”. But it seems to have backfired. Or rather gone smoothly and proven my point…that “reason” repeatedly cannot hear “poetry”.

    A life without poetry is loveless. Poetry is “feeling”.

    That is why Jesus spoke in almost unintelligible poetry.

    To which later ediface of The Church replied by burying such “feeling words” under centuries of rational, analytical, rule riddled dogma.

    Love thy neighbour.
    Forgive thine enemy.

    Twenty one centuries later and we still cross examine and pick the words apart so our guts don’t have to “feel” them.

    Buddha also.

    If the mad are to be heard then they may be believed. The mad who say they are not mad at all would beautifully be accepted in what they believe and what they think of themselves. And the mad who say they are mad would be beautifully accepted in what they believe and regard of themselves.

    Madness is like being in touch with your inner child. A child insolently immune to the dictates of oppressive “logical regimes”.

    What is a child? A small person who knows entirely what their “free choices” want to be.

    An over emphasis on “reason” tries to organize the child to only have particular choices. Right choices.

    This horrible lesson about how your inner mad child must get given an ideological lesson in how to make its own choices is a bar to freedom.

    So quite why antipsychiatry are in a hurry to erase the mad word is a bit of a mystery. Just because the child is ill treated does not mean getting rid of the child.

    Just because the mad are ill treated does not mean getting rid of the mad.

    Making them all normal. Whatever that means. It probably is not what your normal is. Your normal free choices for you.

    I said I have been keeping something hidden.

    It is this…

    The human is an animal.

    There are no “logical” animals.

    There are only “feeling” animals.

    Animals do not tell other animals that “have to” call themslves schizophrenic.

    Animals do not tell other animals that they SHOULD NOT look mad.

    Animals do not tell other animals that they cannot call themselves schizophrenic or pee on streetlights or roll in leaves or guzzle the wrong food or drink muddy water.

    Animals treat other animals like children who are FREE to make their OWN CHOICES.

    If someone does not treat you like an animal, run screaming for the hills.

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it….puff…puff….

  • I said a comment, comment 103 or comment 110, my comments keep slipping down the landslide of banter, so maybe you need to click on my Diaphanous Weeping name to find that comment faster, but anyway, I am ill with schizophenia as I say. I honour the ideas of this website that are against pushing medications on people. I am also against inacurate diagnosis or misdiagnosis or misdescription being giving to people who do not want that. I am against experts calling people liars when those people say they are not ill. I am against imposing control on peoples choices.

    None of this means nobody can air “an opinion”.

    If a father drowns his three children because he thinks they were conceived by the devil, I would prefer a gentle psychiatrist to air an opinon that that dad should not collect his fourth child from kindergarten.

    I respect what this website stands for. It wants to educate the public or society about faulty education.

    But I am NOT the public.

    I am me.

    And I have a basic human right to say I feel ill. And I have a basic human right to call that illness whatever I choose to. This year it is schizophrenia but next year it might be fizzy atom illness or red poppy disease. It is MY choice to say when I feel ill and since I am NOT THE SOCIETY it is NOT THE SOCIETY’s choice.

    I repeat the above for anyone who wants to uphold their basic human right to say they do not have schizophrenia and are not ill.

    The “belief” in schizophrenia is like the “belief” in the desert whirlwind that can drive people mad in some cultures. Nobody goes after those people and educates them out of the folly of a belief that brings them comfort. Nobody tells individuals with those views that they are “wrong” now since SOCIETY has decided that the whirlwind is a myth.

    What is being trampled on in this era that has EVERYONE FIGHTING EVERYONE over what is BEST for THE world is the aggressive destruction of everyone’s basic human right to have their OWN freedom of choice, to regard themselves and their illness or absence of illness in their own way. Not THE PUBLIC’s way. What does anyone mean by THE PUBLIC?

    A person has insomnia over how to SAVE THE WORLD. So they start informing THE SOCIETY of what THEY need to KNOW. What is this push push push to tell strangers what they need to know? The push links to anger and the fight.

    But if a person is fighting are they able to listen to multifarious individuals from entirely different tribes who have their own consolling myths?

    A person may have utopian vision of how THE WORLD SHOULD BE. Well what if you do not like that utopian vision? What if it looks like it will not respect your freedom to be just you? Is the person going to shun you? If they are is that shunning world one you want to belong to?

    Everyone on the internet are fighting, fighting, fighting.

    Even dear weary Robert probably feels irked.

    It is all going according to plan. By this I mean that humans will only realise the fruitlessness of endless arguements, all pushing to influence individuals freedom of choice, when they mistake THE WORLD for a utopian vision and not see that each individial IS THE WORLD.

    Anger ORGANIZES.

    Love is the great liberator because it does not try to organize an individual out of their freedom of choice.

    Nature is disorganized.
    Humans have lost the ability to accept being disorganized. And now humans are fighting, fighting, fighting, in trying to organize THE WORLD that is each other human being.

    It is not trauma that breaks you. It is your dreams. The sheer unfairness of them. The unfair difficulty inherent in all dreams to be easily arrived at.

    A billion people are going to war over the unfairness of their dreams.

    But war is a nightmare that ensures no dreams can even be wept about.
    There are no beds left unsplintered to dream them in.

    What ceases a war is not the accomplishment of change. It is the successful realization that no accomplishment is worth ruining THE WORLD for.

    THE WORLD that is you.
    THE WORLD that is me.


    Love is harder to be than war is to do.

  • ….all said with neutral curiosity and not in a fit of pique.

    So thankyou for the article. It is really a good one. It highlights things of note.

    I suffer greatly from my schizophrenia. My hallucinations are all day relentless. Mostly they are hallucinations of crawling sensations under my skin. I do not mean an imagining of a sensation. I mean it feels as real as a nest of wasps inside my whole body. It is an hourly ordeal. I cannot flee from it in a boat. It comes with me. No psychologists identity for me would wipe it away. I am stuck with it.

    But out my suffering comes the flowers of my poems.

    My torture leaves me that as a consolation. A jumble sale raffle ticket gift.

    I find meaning in this.

    But the thing with meaning is there is an urge to share it. It is exciting to bring it back to the tribe. We are creatures bound to the allure of the significant and we seek to compare notes about it.

    And so there is a wish to share the flowers.

    But I am not sure this article would want me to find meaning in my suffering.

    Most human stories are all about finding meaning in suffering.

    Ever since I came to MIA I have been both bold in thrusting my poems out into the comments yet apprehensive lest the notions in them wander in ways I would not choose.

    I am always in a process of dying from my insufferable tormenting hallucinations. My oven door is opened more often as a fast track to the hereafter than to bake pavlova. I cannot stand much more of my ghastly illness. But what haunts me is the silly notion that if I do not survive neither will my flowers.

    So, I have been flinging my poesies like bombs.

    Seed bombs.

    Petals scattered in the sea. I do not know where they will wash up.

    Intellectual property is a contentious topic. Less a petal and more a barnacle.

    My red blood cell is my own utterly. It belongs to me. It pretty much is me. Yet when I go to donate blood I do not fret. I do not think that the nurse will make off with my blood cell that is my property. I do not wait for the nurse to praise me as the exhausted creator of it.

    My own body is worth less to me than the product of my intellect. How is it that our “logic” is more bankable than our blood? Or our breath?

    Is life that cheap?

    In infancy we do not go to school to understand “our feelings”. We do not take university courses in “our emotions”. These are not our certificated copyrighted intellectual property.

    If I can donate my red blood cell without asking for a plaque on a wall in celebrated recognition of all the tormenting suffering in me that it took to produce that red blood cell then maybe my scattered flowers need no acknowledgment.

  • Said with serenity. My suffering is my own thankyou. My loss is my own thankyou. My sorrow is my own. My happiness is my own.

    All of “my feelings” are entirely my own and no one can claim “my feelings” as theirs or judge “my feelings”.

    If I freely choose to share “my feelings” by expressing them and if the receiver receives them emotionally enough to perceive an evokation of “my feelings” then that sharing is all up to me.

    My emotions are not “collective property”.

    If I want to regard myself as heroic or brave for my ordeals in my life then that also is entirely up to me.

    I am not sure who would want their anguish to be meaningless.

    Perhaps this article is meaning that when your suffering is overlooked or unrewarded or dismissed as being arbitrary then that makes your ordeal worse and you more of a hero for enduring it. But it is still the pursuit of some notion of courage and heroism.

    Perhaps it is a vaunting of sacrificial suffering, where you win no recognition for the pain. Sacrificial suffering is part of compassion but not much. For to be so self-denying involves being a traitor to some of your “feelings” that do not want an ordeal. And this hushing of authentic “feelings” hushes the very energy that feeds a “feeling” of genuine compassion. When compassion is just a wooden unemotional gesture, done out religious or ideological “logical duty” it is no longer a “feeling” at all. It is too numbly “rational” to flow as love or compassion.
    So the societal idealizing of sacrificial suffering is an idealizing of the impotence of the ability to access inner “feelings”. This impotence becomes dogma and winds up as rigid piety.
    And we all know how “feelinglessly” indifferently cruel the perfected pious can be.

    I think what the article is saying is that giving an identity from psychology to marginalized people is an imposition.

    I would say that going a step further and telling people they must have a shared identity or no identity is also an imposition.

    People ought to be free to tell their story of suffering and tell it in any which way they freely choose to without it meaning something inadvertantly politically shameful.

  • I want to clarify my prior comment because I have just listened to a man online “logically” trying to argue me out of my knowing that climate change is happening. He was in a popular chat show.

    Let me be clear that from my own understanding climate change is as true as the time, over a decade ago, that I heard from my angels that there was going to be a global pandemic coming out of China. The one that recently showed up.

    Climate change is being denied because climate change is “illogical”, like “feelings”.

    Climate change is going to go rapidly downhill. At present people are encouraged to tell the crying emotive climatologists, and supposedly manipulative borderline biologists and ecologists and meterologists that they are not doing proper science because science does not “do” weeping. It is bone dry. As dry as the ox and the camel bleached to a scribble of chalk white calcium on the blackboard of the desert night sky. Nobody sees how bad it truly is. Some earthy campaigners lash themselves to trees to see if body language can say what “logic” refuses to listen to. Such campaigners are called petulant and childish and mad. All the usual names that castigate the “feeling”.

    It is precisely the indifference to human “feelings” that has caused our current climate change. An overly “rational” dismissive disregard of the “feelings” of other creatures and biodiversity. An Amazonian rainforest is petulantly and childishly getting in the way of “logical order”. Get rid of it with a lit match. Man The Chain Saw Smoker. The gaudy tropical birds of paradise can meet the same fate as the ox and the camel because just like “feelings” they getting in the way and are hardly necessary are they? Who would miss the trees and the songs of trees? Who would miss your “feelings” of sadness or joy or rage or loss? With a lot of “reason” you can be made “reasonable”, to the extent you “feel nothing at all” about your bewildered wayward gulf stream and your choking sky. Don’t worry, “logic” will build a sky. It has built and built and built so much that touches the sky. So “logic” can plan a brand new improved sky. One with a dimmer switch so you do not have to see the bones of the old sky.

    The angels keep telling me…

    “The sky is the limit”.

    What they mean is for me to hurry up. If I want to write my little poems about my sky, your sky, our sky, I ought to leave the comments sections and focus on these muses of mine.

    I can vouch for the knowing that the future is good. But that does not mean it is going to be arrived at without effort. I do not especially mean collective effort. The pitfall of “consensus opinon” that drives collective effort is that it allows “logic” within it to be captured and enmired by imposter leaders who are extreme bullies intent on halting progress with miriade fussy “rules”. Even collective protests can turn ugly with “rules” and aggressive control in that way. I just mean the effort is more like the discipline of the mystic, who with gracile dignity removes themselves from contaminating influences that upset their equillibrium, their emotional sensitivity. That which the overly “rational” bully would call petulant and childish and silly.

    There is a rebellious climate change campaign group who are merrily derided for holding up commuters. When the Ice Age comes, and I feel it is en route, hastened by climate change, then to the naesayers a three meter high snow drift will deter lunch and the school run much more childishly.

    I am the acquaintance of a few climate change deniers, I have no animosity towards them. In fact a measure of climate change denial is wonderful for when “feelings” cave in. Nobody should go about their day in a state of abject misery about climate change. Feel “feelings” yes. Become a wallowing nihilistic paralysed heap in a dark bedroom is bad for emotional wellbeing. A balance is what contains common sense. You are only one little human scrap. You did not cause climate change. You personally did not wake up on a wednesday several years back and mendaciously decide to bring about the collapse of the globe’s Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation or the Larsen B Ice Shelf.

    All that said, in future there are factions that might blame certain puny humans for doing just that, in a blamefest that has nothing to do with “feeling” concerned about the climate, or “feeling anything”. The castigations and blame will come from the piously overly “logical” and their bullying need to be “right”. To which you must be made to feel all “wrong”.

    When the penny drops about how bad climate change really is then many will want to do all they can to adjust to it, but many who are stressed into being overly “logical” puppets on strings will want to “blame” and “blame” and “blame” strangers for causing climate change. They will do so because “blaming” IS adaptation to some. Blame comes from “judgement” which comes from a reflex toward “logic”. Blame is an adapting “away from” getting emotional. Blame is sometimes a defensive way to avoid “feeling” inmost emotions of want and need. Blame comes from fear. It comes from anger and mostly anger comes from fear of loss. Blame is not acceptance.

    Instead, when humans accept their many emotions what comes next is calm. Just like when you are a snivelling broken mess and someone accepts you, you feel calm. What the world needs most of all in the future is calm. The effort is about being “calm”.

    The effort therefore is an acceptance of the childishness of crying about a road construction flattening a butterly.

    For if humans had never been “logically” talked out of weeping at a crumpled dead painted lady or a fallen bird of paradise then there would be no climate change.


    Susan, I commend what you are doing by bring people into contact with horses so that they can get out of their minds. It is a mode of instant healing. May I say that I would prefer people to replace the “bin the label” idea with “bin all bullying”?

    I am rather enamoured with my schizophrenia diagnosis and have no wish to call my illness whatever someone who is not me tells me to. I do not want to be told I am “wrong” for this choice of mine. Being told I am “wrong” would suggest to me that someone is harbouring an agenda for how I should heal, or improve myself. This would be a stigmatizing of the way I am healing myself. I won’t belabour the point as I have mentioned these in former comments. Click on my name to find them. But to broaden the inspiration I want to throw in a tangent. At present a gazillion people are spectating an online version of teletherapy in a famous celebrity court case. Absolutely everyone and their horse and pet dog are castigating “that woman” as being a LIAR. Why they are concluding this is because psychotherapy has allowed everyone to become puppets on strings to the library “logic” within that profession. Everyone has found the “logic” and believes they can weaponize it as if it is THE TRUTH. They can use that “truth” of who someone is, according to psychotherapy, to conduct a witch trial where they get an expert backstage pass to the inner soul of whoever is declared a sinner for not crying the “right” fluid consistency of tears. Those millions of online spectators can vent hatred of a woman they have never met because like all bullies who give themselves entitlement to nitpick they can qualify their invectives with the “logical moral higher ground” that has been inadvertantly fed to their gossip hungry thirst by psychotherapy.

    Where are the antipsychiatry placcards outside that court room? Where are the thousands who would shout that there is no such thing as borderline personality disorder, or narcissism personality disorder, or fake histrionic personality disorder? Why are they not rushing to that woman’s defense? Something very odd is going on. The silence whilst a woman is interrogated in public and having her “character” torn to shreds for simply having a messy divorce is astounding.
    Puppets on strings is a phrase I use to describe the way people can be gullible to following decrees and popular consensus opinion just because it sounds impressively analytical. It sounds “right”. This happens when ordinary citizens become so fed up with being told they are “wrong” that when they find an even worse example of “wrongness”, such as a woman with say silky hair, and nail varnish, and a smart suit, and cheeky smile, and nervous way of wiping her nose, those people have a wish to be “right” about how “wrong” she is. But because they have never met her they need increasing amounts of “logic” to “justify” diagnosing her as a liar and a sinner from a comfortable distance. That “logic” pours out of psychotherapy. Psychotherapy has unwittingly become a bible to haters. Its jargon is selected to condemn everyone and anyone as being marked by a heinous character flaw. Psychotherapy is being co-opted as material to propagandize definitions of who are the new demonized “them”. The personality disorders are held up as “evidence” of a failure to be “loving”. Indeed the psychotherapeutic notion of love has also been stolen by the bullying as being an entitlement they are owed. So that when they see someone with a character that is not oozing the “right” demonstration of “textbook perfect” love then that character must be evil. Just like how during the Spanish Inquisition a failure to love The King of Kings marked a misfit maiden out as mestopheles.

    Thou shalt love is an ugly entitlement!

    Nobody should “have to” love anyone. Forcing love destroys it, so how can love be subject to demands of entitlement?

    Yet here we are in a time when this idea of the entitlement of love, an idea promoted by psychotherapy as a “rightness” has been turned by the masses into a virtue with which to be indignant and pontificating and morally “righteous”. Where you find “righteousness” you often find a desire to “punish” the “them” who do not look it, namely the casual, flippant, nonchalant, gauche, nervous, upset, banal, dim, normal woman.
    The “righteous” are using the spyhole of “logic” around personality disorders to damn strangers. The “righteous” puppets on strings always want to say “she did it” or “he did it”. Compiling “details” of “why” the “them” did it takes on a fetishistic furrowing through locks of hair and inspecting the way a brow raised upon hearing the word mammoth.

    Let me be clear that I find the term personality disorder neutral. Like any diagnosis it is just a way that a person can choose to say they feel mixed up. I have a diagnosis of schizophrenia. I do not ever want to be “treated like a schizophrenic”. Having AIDS no longer means a gay man gets treated like he has AIDS.

    Having any name that you find useful and that you choose to keep to describe your suffering should never be used by the “righteous” to inflict further suffering on you.

    If we were not living in the heyday of personality disorders it would have been some other fussy “logical” criticism of character flaws. To get rid of mere word choices fails to address what is consistently behind the punitive use of such arbitary words. It is like confiscating a bully’s loudspeaker whilst failing to stop him nuking a country.

    I spoke in one comment I made of the notion that there is an element of preordained destiny in some lives, made whilst they are in spirit, before they incarnate here on Earth. I spoke of two war waging leaders who had been best friends in a spirit dimension but had agreed to take on the role of opponents who despised each other. This is in order to teach humanity of the destructive folly of war. Only by reaching that awareness can authentic love be left in peace to flourish. On the other hand it is foolish to think that humanity is needing “taught” spiritual “lessons”. This would be another form of “righteousness” perhaps. Being puppets on strings to divine beings. Any divine being would throw up at being told to ape an authority. Real divine beings are wont to say…

    “All Are Equal”.

    So either they are equal and so are not divine and are on the same level with us, or best of all….we all are equal because we are all divine.

    Nevertheless, on a playful level it has amused me to believe that the woman in the high profile court case is a high enlightened spiritual being who is doing the metaphorical equivallent of dressing like a beggar to be unnoticed as a loathed woman with a personality disorder who nobody cares for. What I mean is the woman may have taken on the heavy task of being a pioneer before she was even born. She will have known on a spiritual level what her life would entail before she got here, but she will have volunteered to be the most villified stranger in this key time so that millions will have had the chance to offload their preachy self righteous psychobabble hatred of her, to her as the example of “illogical” and “feeling” and “wrongness”.

    It is not so much that every inch and atom of her character is being scrutinized, under the auspices of psychotherapy’s flung garlands of personality disorders, it is that “feelings” are being nationally slammed as being “crazy”.

    What the “logical” tirades are saying is that her “feelings” stop the entitlement to be loved.

    Logic never did get on well with “feelings” displayed in “any” setting. Logic always wants to pick emotions apart to discredit emotionality. Logic has found an ally in psychotherapy and the way it is an “expert” in the strangers “feelings”. If psychotherapy can say…

    “I know how you really really feel”

    then it is a short step for any bully to profess to know not only your “feelings” but apply the designation of “wrong” to the “feelings”. But really it is a cover for declaring the fact you “feel any feelings at all” as heinously wrong.

    This is the task of the spiritually enlightened woman sitting in the court dock. Oh she wont be fully aware she has signed up before she was born to do the task of joggling puppets on strings so that they can later ponder over why they behaving in that way to her, a complete stranger. She will be unaware of her deeper role. She will be bewildered at why her soft voice is being rejected. Her ignorance is needed, so that she can be a mirror. She must reflect the punitive so they can see everything they said about her. A healing mirror. But do not think I leave out the man. In the dispute he has a deeper spiritual role to play also. Before he was born he may have volunteered for a life of suffering too, a life where “feelings” are muffled by drugs that are consumed to shut up the library of “logic” in the mind. The “logic” that keeps saying…

    “You are wrong”
    “You are wrong”

    Drugs that when taken to excess cause the bilious vomiting of walled up “feelings” to spew out uncontrollably and devastatingly.

    This too is a mirror held up.

    All is not as it seems.

    Women are being increasingly villified globally by men who cannot “access” their “feelings” because “logic” has punished them for having something as inexplicable and illogical as “feelings”.

    It will get worse before it gets better. And really there is nothing any single human can do to stop it. It is the way humanity is transforming from being “feeling haters” to being “feeling lovers”.

    We want what we lose. And that is going to be our collective compassionate “feelings”.

    I gave a link at the top here and digressed. But it was just to alert you to know “logic” creeps into everything, even mysticism. Where ever you hear the words “have to” understand there is “logic” and “rules” and “agenda” behind it, regulations to “improve you”.

    If ALL ARE EQUAL why do you need a bunch of “have to” prompts to change who you are?

    I like this Lars. Only found him today. He is great. However even is a sucker to the idea that humans “have to” be busily knowing more “logical” stuff to get better.

    You get better by simply being who you feel you harmlessly and freely choose to be.

    There is no judgement if…


    Back to thank you Richard D Lewis for your thankyou. If you like my music you might like this. It is understated but good to walk through a meadow with. I actually meant Richard Sears. But when I saw you had replied it touched me deep. You and I have opinions at varience yet we found a bridge. This has often been my learning at MIA. The temptation in comments sections is to be “right” about a cherished idea or fervid planet saving impulse and this makes us all seek out opposing views to spar with, in order to reach that “rightness” sense of order, in the “right” “wrong” dynamic. It is easier to remonstrate about what we do not want, not what we do want. Bickering becomes essential to that end. But we just add fuel to fire in causing yet more bickering, until the whole world is aflame with what we do not want.
    I recall the angels saying to me one day…

    “You can be right or you can be love”.

    It is much safer to be “right”. Love is dangerous. It dissolves both lover and beloved. And dissolving feels like the disintegration of identity that occurs in madness. Which is why people are on the whole loathe to love anyone until pushed. Love feels like loss of self. But it returns self in a dozen voices from appreciators, as a lost the found bonus prize.

    I hardly know what I am saying, as is often the case. But I just knew that towards the end of last month I had gotten to a point of exhaustedness about arm wrestling in the comments section. I was doing so to apparently take care of my kind of a world, to ensure it would not be dismantled by the burning wheels of human progress, but in my joining everyone on social media all doing much the same fighting, to conserve or manifest their ideal world I was destroying it by giving people a day when their comment had been daubed by my graffiti. My backchat. My snippy plucking up of key words like a pathologist tweezering up telltale carpet fibres to show what influencers had been there.

    It began to feel never endingly tawdry to be critiquing people all day. I began to reflect on why I exist at all. Was it really to do the show of comments oneupmanship. Was I given six senses for that? Could I sniff a comment like a flower? Could I devour it like a bowl of succulent strawberries? Could I shake a dazzle of raindrops from it? Could I gather it in a heap of planks and build a bridge with it?

    This last I decided I must do.

    Ordinarily we despise the different not because they are unloveable but because they are. It is a love that dare not be lest it cost us loss of self. The different threaten our selfhood because the different could so easily consume us. And then being so absorbed we would become the different. So extraordinary efforts are brought to bear to keep the different away from us. We scour comments for signs of such difference and seize on them with the relish of the born again, born back into our self, not like “them”. But then we sit triumphant with our self and sit and sit and sit and sit and sit and sit and then what?

    What happens to bonds of affection?

    It is easier to tell people what you do not want in life…the stress, the marginalizaton, the oppression, the rejection, the alienation, the loss, the mockery, the list is endless. So very long that it is easy to spend a lifetime checking the boxes of it. It is much more dangerous to ask for what you do want. Or even be aware of wanting anything. Wanting is shameful.

    So we go online to go to war with our wanting anything by reading out the list of inexcusables and frightfuls and scandalous outrages as if sorting those things out “is what we want”.

    Well, I am not so sure it is.

    There have been a fleet of nature articles of late. Dear to my heart is nature. I welcome such fine writing. However, anything good in life can get borrowed as a convenient mascot or emblem. In former eras there was a place that the weary human could wake up in after they had deceased. Olympus, or Sheol, or Valhala, or Christain Heaven. It was, from time to time, used as an incentivizer to encourage peasants to behave impeccably on this mortal coil. I believe this is starting to happen with respect to ordinary normal nature. Nature is being “revered” like a mystical heaven. Everyone is coaxed to bemoan not getting anywhere near nature, as if scoundrels are preventing us all from “feeling feelings” in response to nature. Yet there are more blades of grass on our planet than there are humans to wistfully marvel at them. Nature is all around us but who would have thought it. We trudge around miserably as if we cannot get access to it. And even when we are given a whole meadow to cavort in we cannot bear it. It is godforsakenly unbearable to be near mountain nor impudent puzzing stream because we simply cannot “feel it anymore”. We are impotent. It is “logic” that has made us incapable of sinking sumptuously back into the universe, since “human logic” was designed by thinkers to make us thrash and flail our way out of being mute or messy like nature is.

    Here comes the many “righteous” bickering campaigns that want to “unite” us with nature, as if it was deliberately stolen from us by certain rascals in suits. Nothing to do with us. Nothing to with our castrated emotions. We have the yearning for heaven in our private distress and so it must be somewhere. The campaigners say the new heaven is called nature. But in order to “have a piece of heaven” that is nature we must be devoid of flaw or sin. What sin means these days is just sounding “different”. If we are too “different” then we cannot “enter heaven”, the meadow or mountain or stream. We can try to but we will not be experiencing the born again thrill of selfhood that comes from being “right”?

    The campaigners say we can only meet the Lord of cure, the fixer of whatever it is we have got, if we “think” the “right” thoughts about nature.

    But being “logical” about nature is not “feeling” in “love” with nature. It is not “feeling” so to the extent of merging messily with nature.

    But nobody is to blame for our own individual person having a non-acceptance of “feelings”. To regard it all as some bureacrats fault that we do not “love our own feelings” is like blaming an obstetrician for our not loving our infant newborn. Luckily it is within our own grasp to accept our “feeling life”. This becomes more empowering than waiting on an exuctive in a suit to grant us the power to “feel”. Our ability to “feel” is a kind of heaven. Even our unwanted “feelings” can be intensely heavenly.

    But in the future all manner of campaigns will want to drive “logic” into a vaunted position and have a heirarchical notion of nature as being a heaven that you must “earn”, by thinking in the “right way”, and not just about nature but about everything. They will blame you for the worsening of nature. As if you hurled a brick onto an implaccable mountain. For every human human constructed heaven there cometh a hell. For that is the main intention. To have a place to bundle all the “different” away to, or make offerings of them.

    I grow uneasy upon hearing of how my vision about climate change has been true all along, that it is getting worse. Much worse than we realise. But nature does not “do” heaven or hell. Nature is always beautiful stupefying terrifying nature but it tries not to be “personal”. Nature does not give a flying squirrel for how “logical” we are. Climate change is bad but humans will adapt to it. So it is not the end of the world. But other humans will ever want to say that is. To induce good behaviour through blame. And yet other humans will say there is no climate change at all. These two extremes mark the problem of our era. The lack of middle way common sense at the heart of the human. This is because the human has lost touch with heart. To find a way back from those edgy extremes will take visiting those extremes long enough to find out that both those extremes are lacking in compassion.

    I need to pee.

  • All week my angels have been nudging my coffee drinking elbow by uttering the words…

    “Lex Talionis”.

    I had to look that up as it is in Latin. Although I did my degree in Divinity I took the non Latin learning runway of scholarship. Ever the truant.

    Today I read that “Lex Talionis” means the concept of justice that refers to an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
    What is meant by this saying is not…
    “Someone just hit me therefore I have a right to slam them into a wall”.
    It is not a divine “thumbs up” for revenge.

    What the phrase means is justice ought to be ONLY an eye, if an eye was affected, or ONLY a tooth if a tooth was affected.

    Justice ought to be proportionate. Blame should not be a massive mile long net. A dragnet from a trawler ship dragging in every crustacean and accusation of wrong that has ever occurred in the lifetime of the plaintiff. It ought to not be a laborious “hauling in”, as proof of every misdemeanor that has ever occurred to someone in a lifetime. Blameworthy stuff that was possibly done unknowingly by a cast of hundreds.

    In this Era of Bullying one of the techniques a bully may use is mimicking victim talk. But confusing bullies can also get spiffing in lambasting some poor victim’s actual “victim talk” as if it is “illogical” or as if the victim is a “Liar”.

    But mostly when a bully performs “victim talk” it involves heavy emphasis on relentless blaming. A bully may blame a great many people because no bully is happy deep down. No one who is woodenly out of touch with their lively feelings is ever joyful or calm. Because a bully cannot access the calm and caring that comes from living in acceptance of emotions. A bully uncalmly decides that an eye for an eye is not good enough. They want it ALL. They want the punishment to be of the order that whole world crouches quivering and quaking in sorry apology. But even after that, the bully wants those people, hundeds, thousands of individuals, people that the bully may not even have met, to change. So soon all the “others” are to change who they are and how they speak and how they dress and when they eat and sleep.

    This is not “Lex Talionis”.

    A world that does not do proportionate justice is a nightmare world. Vengeance is not healing. It is merely an extention of the thrashing activity of the injury.

    Injuries need calm to heal them. Calm comes from accepting every feeling. Even the feeling of loss, once accepted fully instills calm.

    From calm can arise the striving for the gracious balance restorer of proportionate justice and compensation.

    In a furious world with a metaphorically smashed fingertip it wants more than “lex talionis”. It wants judgement to be a total annihilation of another desperate human being. Amber takes a moment to form in an apocalyptic conflagration and thousands of years to appreciate the pure, clearness of.


    As a heretic I want to say that in the epoch of the Old Testament accounts many prophets were driven out of their villages for hearing the word of God because they did not possess the “right” qualifications. Their rambling bible soothsaying got them pinned as mad.

    These days they’d have been pummelled with psychiatric medication.

    To me a schizophrenic person is someone who experiences being ill from a shattered psyche, mind, brain, body, whatever the cause may turn out to be. But precisely this shattering creates an openness to influxes of impressions and discernments that may not be deranged babbling. Madness has always been at times spookily predictive. It has been shown that during creativity the person’s focus or awareness darts all over the brain to pick up disparate bits and fragments of idea and feelings in order to form something unique. That is the brain doing a different kind of rummage than a brain does when it is being orderly and calculated. There has been some new hints that one person’s brainwaves can have an effect on another person. All of this suggests to me that the dynamic creativity and messy looseness in madness grants a receptivity to being spoken to by other. I believe the mad know more about what may be about to happen than the plodding didactic and seemingly “sane” or “normal”. The village.

    But because madness is unwelcome, just as “feeling too much” is unwelcome. Nobody ever listens to the mad. And so the prophets almost have the job description of being ignored. Like rejection is a prerequisite.
    Luckily the mad are not in a hurry to prove their “visions” are “right” or “logical” and so they dry their tears and stagger off crestfallen into the desert.

    For over a decade I have been told by my angels about a huge flood that is going to engulf some parts of the globe. So for ten years, more maybe, I have been sitting on a desert boulder telling passersby about the colossal flood that is going to r
    affect some coastal regions globally. I never knew when it will come nor what places. I just know it will.

    But everyone here knows how listeners can make you believe you are fool for entertaining mad little thoughts or invisible angels. So I became more hushed in case it is all just from the schizophrenic part of my brain.

    And even though I predicted the pandemic years before it went “all real” on my televison, and the same for the war that is occurring just now on our planet, that has come “real and true” also, I hid my “flood notes”. I hid them because I only want to be healing. And so that means saying nice stuff. But then if a toddler is going to get run over you don’t just stifle your yell of care just because it might give them a jolt. Sometimes a jolt is the healing thing to say. Even as a preparation.

    It has been over a decade. Several months ago I found this fellow creative “receiver’s” video on youtube. She hears aliens but angels/aliens/heralds/deities might all be from the same cosmos birthing Source.

    Some way into this video my astonishment at what she was saying made me weep with joy that someone else whom I have never encountered before received the same vision and got the same kind of memo.

    When a global flood rumbles into town I am prepared with a plan for getting people on to higher land. I have ropes to fling to the flailing. I do not obesses about it but I just try to be wise.

    I feel something may occur to the Hoover Dam but that is not the Ocean Flood on the globe I mention. More it is just that the Hoover Dam is a sign.

    But I am happy for people to call me nutty and chase me from the desert boulder. That way I do not have to feel guilty at jolting them. My nuttiness protects them from bothering to listen to me.

  • Thank you Rebel. I back “your choice”. Your “choice” is beautiful.

    I really must GO and leave the comments section as I want to go into retreat and prioritize my health. But before I leave I just want to shower the metaphorical philosophical breadcrumbs from off my apron as a last gesture from my playful fussiness…..

    I shall use the word “you” generically now, as in the abstract anyone.

    In synchronious use, yesterday I wrote that exact bible quote mentioned on judgement. It is a powerful quote for our current decade where everyone is scrutinizing the motives of everyone else. All scrutinizing of stranger’s motives comes from “fear”, not so much of who they are, they are probably innocent and harmless and doing nothing grevious. Rather it is fear of “who they could become in future” if their “free choices” are not trampled over by “logical” adherence to “right choices”.

    Lots of anger is being meted out to persons in case they “become xyz”.
    It is not even anger at “who they are”.
    But this outrageous controlling by the angry then “causes” a terrified need to equally be angry, at being so controlled. Until the whole world is full of the angry who do not like where your “free choices” MIGHT lead you. Who your own “freedom” MIGHT make you become next year or the year after.

    The fearful scrutinizers think that if they muscle everyone to make “right choices” then the world will know peace by having only the “right people” in it. Not the “wrong people”.

    But since “feelings” inspire your individual “free choices”, and since “feelings” cannot be “right” or “wrong”, just like bodily breathing or eating or belching and dreaming cannot be deemed “right” or “wrong” then there are no “right choices” as such or “wrong choices”.

    There is only loving or bullying.

    Bullying is unacceptable and comes from not having contact with the feelings that tell you via empathy that the other creature is suffering by having their “free choices” stripped from them.

    Love is an indication of having great access to feelings.
    Bullying is the illness that occurs through having no access to feelings.

    Many factors can cause that. There is abdolutely nothing “wrong” with wanting to choose to be a very “logical” person. Logic by itself is wonderful in life and necessary and is NOT bulllying. An over schooling in “logic” however may occasionally turn out bullies. This is because a “logical” life with no emotions becomes rapidly miserable and devoid of feelings like romance and playfullness and joy. That misery is a pent upness that erupts as aggressive bullying from time to time. All bullies are miserable. The challenge is to remain compassionate about their miserable ill state WITHOUT accepting the bullying behaviour. A tendency is to demonize the miserable who become bullies, rather than seeing them as ill humans who just need access to their “feelings” again. But this cannot be suggested to them by pushing them in the direction of “feelings” for that in itself would be being a pushy bully also.

    It is always tempting to have a “rule” that says the world should have no controlling people in it, but by controlling a controller you may inadvertantly become controlling.
    You cannot controllingly frog march a person off into healing without being a harmer. It is not healing to an individual to come the charlatan “right” and “logical” know-all of whatever you believe is “for their own good”.
    Even if you supposedly helpfully buy them ten copies of books on “for their own good”.

    Having “free choice” is so holy it is more essential than “what” the specific choice is. In a world of nine billion delightfully choosy humans there is going to be bickering over whose choice is better or more relevant or more planet saving or more caring in a “consensus opinion” way. But a “consensus opinon” is not an individual’s own heartfelt choice. It is just the recognition of some similar choices all categorized as “correct” by some external expert of dogma or “logic”, a standard that is of itself not “of feeling”.

    What confuses humans is that a sense of “belonging” that is derived from being “approved of” by “consensus opinion” FEELS so restoring, in a lonely life, and this buddy acceptance then feels healing. But that healing found in belonging can be the abolishment of individual “freedom of choice”. It is a kind of tenth rate sacrifice of one’s own wellbeing, found in individual “freedom of choice” in order to join a club and be found acceptable and loved by them. But then the question becomes this….
    IF you have to give up being you to get love is it really love?

    Love is about making you MORE of who YOU are, not less.

    The “logic” that becomes so bullying within “consensus opinon” in any club will try to tell YOU that you do not know YOU at all. It will supply you with the latest “rational” and “judgey” arguements, scoured from halls of universities, to belittle you. This then frightens you about bravely piping up with YOUR OWN quirky outlook or opinion or “free choice”. Instead you plough your bravery into being brave “for” the club. As if by its becoming an even bigger “consensus opinion” then it will eventually establish itself and its ire will calm down and this will make it be loving and then it will turn around and stop its snap judgements and love your “free choices”.

    Kind of like how any authority that shouts from “consensus opinion” can be symbolic of a violent parent. One who needs tiptoed around and served with undying commitment in order for the individual to be loved.

    You scratch my back and I will scratch yours. You scratch the back of “consensus opinon” and keep scratching and keep scratching.

    Psychiatry has been that “consensus opinion” club. It is inevitable.
    But I think any club, even antipsychiatry, can run the risk of prioritizing “group think” over and above the lovely mixed bag of unique individuals in that group. Each individual has valuable outlooks and philosophies and personal experiences and faiths and contributions to make but when the “consensus opinion” matters far more than the eccentric, choosy, fusspots in it, then personal experiences become DEVALUED. That is not good in true antipsychiatry.

    The only “consensus opinion” worth belonging to is the one that would rather die than impose its regime choices on you.

    In essence Jesus showed this by dying on the cross, dying of love for each individual’s own “free choice” to love him or not.

    If love is not free to change its mind again and again, lots of love one day, then not so much the next, then a bit more the next, and so on, then love is coerced and is not free and is not love.

    “Feedom of choice” is integral to love.

    “Logic” is afraid of feelings and afraid of “freedom of choice” because both can be “illogical” at times. That is why “logic” is behind alot of controlling behaviour.
    Especially in patriarchy.

    The Institution of The Church came long after Jesus. It constructed a palace of “logic” and “consensus opinion” dripping in gilded architecture whilst babies starved. The Church’s “logic” became so marble ice cold and irrefutable and impressive that it led to the end point of mothers handing over their little boys and girls to complete strangers in patriarchal dog collars. Those mothers were propagandized to let their babies go off and get “logical lessons” . Those mothers were taught to ignore their “illogical” gut “feelings” that the “consensus opinion” had gone weird and was no longer “love”.

    I am not against The Church. I am for every religion and atheism and science and anything any person might choose as their best choice for them. None of these are the same thing as bullying. Bullying is not in the temple, or shrine, or palace, or laboritary, or church, or party. Bullying is like a bad stink that can wend a way into anything and anyone. It gets everywhere. It is like air. You cannot see it. It is not in the books or clothes or hairstyles of “the other” or “the different”. In fact if you think it is in the props then you may become a bully of people who harmlessly adore those props, those books, those clothes, those hairstyles. Targetting externals will never solve the riddle of why humans become bullies. The need to keep bullying is caused by a fear. It is a fear of breakdown from coming into contact with inner feelings. Feelings that are stimulated to the impervious surface by seeing other people enjoy their “feelings”.

    To arrive at love, even love of self, requires access to inner feelings.

    The way humans do a poor copy of love is hardly love at all. Jesus was a man of FEELINGS. He was not patriarchial. He challenged every narrow bickering smug “consensus opinion” he met with.

    For being a weepy man of FEELING he was called mad then hauled off to a “logical” court room and called a “wrong un” and a “liar”.

    Because “logic” ALWAYS needs to call your own feeling “liars”.

    This is rumbling on in court rooms today. A mass media mob presses its nose up to the court windows to call ANY FEELINGS witnessed in that circus within outright bare faced “LIES”. This is because to the indoctrinated, in their overly logical ways of seeing, ALL FEELINGS cannot be “logically” explained or controlled and so it stands to “reason” that ALL the FEELINGS being declared must be crazy, or borderline, or narcissistic.

    They said the equivallent to the raggy clothed poetic Nazarean carpenter and they are saying the same of the lying bruised Hollywood human being. The bullies say she has an apparently “logically wrong” way of feeling her feeings. As if there can be a “logically wrong” way of crying.

    A divorce is not a “right” side and a “wrong” side. A divorce is a disaster for both human beings. A divorce is not about “sides”. There are no “sides” in a tragedy.

    But in a age where “logic” reigns supreme everyone gets narrowly schooled that there MUST be a “side” because someone HAS to be WRONG to prove logic RIGHT, otherwise logic has no place to go to but “feelings”.

    And that would cause a healing through breakdown.

  • I have the most fun with my angels, or they do me. They are like older siblings who send a junior, such as myself, out to buy cigarettes. Buy this metaphor I mean I am so enamoured with them that I do as I am told. Without question. So sometimes they send me off on a wild goose chase to chat to someone about something topical. I tell the angel I cannot say that. Then they tell me it will be fine because the person really likes me immensely.
    This has me bowled over in astonishment. So I then eagerly agree to go speak to whomever it is they want me to. But over the years, on numerous occasions, it later turned out that the person could not tolerate me. They really found me beneath their contempt. Yet the angels sent me specifically to that person. Again and again. I would get sad at never getting a warm response from the person, given that I was told by the angels that the person thought me charming. Eventually the angels would do a reveal and declare that person thought me deranged. Surprisingly I often fell about laughing at such a prank. But I never lost my faith that the angels were just spreading peace and harmony to others.

    Am I meant to mention benzos? I have used them years ago.

    I sometimes feel that everyone has two guides or angels in their life. They are just like their staff in a school yard, making sure their person does not keel over or get up to mischief of a damaging sort.

    because your freedom of choice is so holy then your choices are to be revered even by angels. Even your stupid choices come first. Angels are not allowed to overly influence you or live your life for you. But I find it funny in comments sections when I get tetchy about reading someone’s political statement and want to reduce it to rubble and want to be “right about my views”, but I pause and wonder if my fellow commenter has two angels who want to yell at me…
    “Please do not utter what you are about type to since our person is having a really rough day”.
    To which my angels may answer those angels with…
    “Well our person here is determined to say it and we cannot stop her but she will learn through saying it that being “right” is not satisfying”.

    I have grown accustomed to regarding life in this way, about my impact, not on the person I read of, but on the way my actions might impact their two angels who in their background and are trying to hold that person together in a round about way.

    This has had a good effect on me, sensing this. I am not so shouty these days. But it would have been better had I got to that state without any notion of angels but simply because I myself could see “the other” needed held together.

    I don’t know where my angels will send me for cigarettes next, but I hope it is a place with people of sincerity as I have come to know here. I have learned a lot about my flaws here, my lack of patience, my meanness, my arguementativeness. It is easy to talk about the heart when I don’t have one.

    I am leaving… in a humble appreciation of peoples willingness to meet me in the raw and with deep feeling and intelligence.

    (The angels are saying “skip that bit”……to which I shove their jocular pranking away).

  • Tina, I think the expanding shuffled deck of comments has now put my earlier comment to someone else next to you, as if I am replying in that one. I am not. It gets like speed dating in the comments musical chairs realignment. So,

    I entirely beg you to loathe your “schizophrenic” label. Throw it away. Or better yet spit in it like I used to do to my sister’s horse riding boots. I have no wish for you to ever call yourself anything I call myself.

    That has always been my position. I am not for anyone having to be like me or like my choices. I just do not like when I meet a chorus of people telling me that I cannot like my choices. And although nobody overtly does, there is occasonally a sneering jibing denigration of my illness which I find ungracious in a website meant to value ALL. But I am not so much riled about that but riled on behalf of anyone who gets told they cannot be who they choose to be. In this regard I echo antipsychiatry. But by this token I am not happy at the way psychiatrists are lambasted for their choice to be who they want to be.



    I am all for people denigrating acts of bullying but I am aware that denigrating BY ITSELF can ALSO be a form of bullying. A form known to psychiatry’s murky past. I think antipsychiatry could go down a similar path to psychiatry if it does not let people CHOOSE their own destiny.

    I believe MIA could do better if it became a belief. That way it could boldly say at the entrance gates that this is what is believed and this is the type of language used and these are the kinds of healing offered. That clarity would dilineate whose choices for themselves are NOT welcome.
    Why that is not happening may be because the belief needs the other to be a source of othering so that group bonding can grow tighter. But this implies there may have been a problem with the bonding before hand, if there is a need to other or unwelcome outsiders. If the “US” cannot “feel” like an “US” without a “THEM” to give its boundary shape then it does not say much for the “US”.
    I was just offering my impressions.
    But mostly, my main endeavour has been to enjoy the role of scapegoat since I expect we shall ALL feel like one in the future, where for a while at least, nobodies “free choice” will be granted unless it concurs with a new regime.

    That dictator regime is on the way.

    It will demand that everyone hate everyone or be hated by everyone.

    This is why my message has often been that…


  • Ps. I am going but just on my way out of the door that keeps revolving I want to say something (in addition to my earlier comment made today in the eugenics article…click on my name here to find what I said).

    The word “work” is as facinating as the word “healing”. Increasingly these two words are combined. But since “work” often involves “doing stuff” and so it may involve rules and logic and reason and a tendency to be a puppet on a string, this can pull into “healing” a level of over emphasis on agenda and being “right”, if not “righteous, and such “logic” can easily build into bullying.
    Until the “healing” is supposed to only be recognizable if it HURTS and BULLIES you and damages you. For your own good. A series of LESSONS of a logical sort to make you not YOU, since YOU are obviously the “reason” why you are unhealed.

    It is palmed off as a nannying form of healing WORK. But it is a wizardry that makes the healer the WORKER. The doer to the done to. The “logic stuffed knower”. The biblical expert at healing whatever you have “WRONG” with you, your LAZINESS.

    All feelings to the outside eye are called lazy or self indulgence. Since feelings do not DO ANYTHING. Feelings just BE.

    Feelings are deemed NOT WORK. And yet there IS NO HEALING GREATER than to just feel whatever you feel. So in that sense FEELINGS HEAL the world. When everyone is feeling their feelings and feeling better from it. Happy people spread happiness. Well people spread wellness.
    If you want a well world allow your acceptance of your true feelings to be that WORK.
    Your own feelings are your healer.

    But because society is rife with misery from endemic bullying, that itself often arises from the overawed reception of “rationalism” to the cold exclusion of emotion, each person thinks they have to bully or be bullied. Until any person becoming bullying becomes a defensive stance the moment they introduce themselves to a total stranger.

    Before you leave home you don bullying “rightness” like it is an all weather rain proof mac. Looking good by sounding “logical” is the only way you think you will be left in peace to simply feel the feelings. So you must foist your erudite rationalism on anyone and everyone to prove yourself “right” to have “feelings”. Emotions that are neither “right” nor “wrong” but just ARE.

    I think antipsychiatry can get swallowed up in this pressure filled need to turn mass healing into WORK.

    I said before that MIA could become a lovely BELIEF.

    I meant it.

    The beauty of being a belief is that it does not have to get swallowed up in the belief that is science.

    Science is a belief that there is a thing that is true and that lots of strange instruments and analytical prods will soon find it, like arriving at salvation or heaven via a Higgs Bosom. Yes, I did deliberately misspell that. Science has its quest for its idea of compass deduced heaven. Religion has its idea of prayerful deduced heaven. Both can be welcoming of a balance of feelings and logic. That is the best. But where science, or religion becomes overly analytical and starts bullying all the feeling people and tells them to be more fixed and logical those people peel off from belonging and set up their own bubble. But in still fighting with their logical forebears they may USE LOGIC to exhalt in the bubble a sense of competing righteousness. They may think it is a more fundamentally healing knowledge or theory. And they may go to WORK on healing everyone, even by gaslighting them that they need healed in the first place.

    By far it would be easier to come away from parleying with old school “logic” and even much of ANY logic. It would be easier to just choose to be being a beautiful belief with its own intrinsic understanding of why people fall ill. To be a belief does not mean “getting rid of” all the other beliefs. It does not mean destroying the way other beliefs choose to feel their way towards their understanding of why people fall sick.

    An understanding about illness and healing is in ALL beliefs. That is ok. No harm is in any belief.

    An understanding alone is not damaging.

    The damage in any belief is in the way BULLYING creeps into ANY belief and masquerades as healing by logic and insists and insists and insists it is “right”, even if you are bawling.

    If MIA were to become a recognizable belief it would not need to exhaustingly do battle in the “right” “wrong” arena. A battle that could make a value in calling any individual of a different free choice “right” or “wrong”…but instead, as a belief, MIA could BE THE ANSWER. BE the HEALER, by saying that ANY feeling and ANY free choice you want to make IS PERFEcT FOR YOU.

  • The real trouble is with the idea of HEALING.

    Healing ought to be about helping you in YOUR choice of knowing what feels ill FOR YOU.

    Helping YOU does not mean coersively imposing external UNWANTED theories and conjecture and “logic” about the myth of the perpetually “fixed” person.

    HEALING YOU means loving you…..IN YOUR OWN CHOICE of how you want that love to be. For some who feel ill they WANT that healing to be from an abuse counsellor specialist. For others they do not want that. They want traditional psychiatry. And for yet more others they want that healing to be political justice and compensation. Whatever heals YOU ought not to be publically shamed since to leave a person unhealed IS more shameful. But you CANNOT TELL another unique human being WHAT their OWN HEALING “SHOULD” BE. Which means you therefore have to ALLOW them to HEAL THEMSELVES in their OWN PREFERRED WAY or what you are doing IS NOT HEALING…

    it is BULLYING and PUSHING YOUR AGENDA and it is probably happening because you have a desperate need to be “right” “right” “right”.

    This might be because widespread “logic” impacting your life with a million ghastly unnecessary preachy LESSONS has made you feel “wrong” “wrong” “wrong”.

    When you find a way to mend the wound of your thinking you are “logically” all “wrong” happens is that THIS then becomes a separate but nonetheless as profound sense of healing. By this manner A LOGICAL THEORY that “logically” explains why you ever were coerced into accepting that you were “wrong” “wrong” “wrong” comes to your rescue.

    But then what occurs is that THE THEORY becomes a bit like a metaphorical new pill that you want to hand out to anyone who YOU THINK has bought into something YOU once felt had you down as “wrong” “wrong” “wrong”.

    But your THEORY that rescued YOU, like a quasi pill, is ONLY A THEORY. IT is only A RATIONAL explanation of your “feelings”. The THEORY itself is NOT “FEELINGS”. Since “logic” is not the same thing as emotions.

    When you are telling yourself you are “wrong” because some “logical” overlord in your vicinity gives you that “rational” explanation for your misery and insists you believe that “logic”, you long to prove that overlord mistaken. You long to prove that you are “right”. But this overlord giving you the sense that you are “wrong” is an injury to your intelligence. A snub. A “reason” for the overlord’s rejection of the feelings you feel. That injury is NOT the same hurt as the initial feelings of outcry or upset from being bullied.

    See it as two pains. The first pain is what happened or how ill you feel. The second pain is how people receive your own understanding of why you feel ill. If people give you THEIR THEORETICAL “logic” as to why you are stupid or careless or feeble or easily conned and that is why you are suffering, this slap in the face becomes a second type of excruciating pain. It is one that makes you determined to DISPROVE that their cruel “logical” THEORY is really what is “wrong”.

    To do that you may develop an over determination to heal your own absorbtion of ever feeling “wrong” by overly wanting to prove and prove and prove YOUR THEORY “right” “right” “right”.
    In coffee parlours and municipal parks you proudly strut around looking for ANYONE who looks a bit sad and to that stranger you foist your own rescuing “right” THEORY as to why they feel “wrong”…even if they DO NOT NEED your THEORY.
    You can convince yourself that the stranger DOES NOT KNOW how much they need rescued by YOUR LOGICAL THEORY. If the stranger just want’s to nibble their cheese bagel you pin them as dangerously AVOIDING being HEALED by what “logic” healed your injured intellect. So you pull a chair closer and proceed to gaslight their OWN SENSE of themselves as being “right for themselves” or happy in their own glib understanding of why they feel a feeling of sadness that day.
    If you can “fix” them too then you can believe yourself doubly “right” ir even “righteous” by being a superb rescuer. A world healer of ALL the upset people you read about in comments sections. Being a world healer would certainly “fix” your ever having been told you were “wrong” by a preachy overlord. But in this vital step…


    You become a BIG PHARMA of a THEORY of how YOU became upset once a long time ago. You become despotic in telling everyone how they can put themselves “right”.

    As though you are now the inquisitor PREACHING at people how they can “get right with God”. Get “right” with an abusive priest’s twisted “logic” of what God stands for. As if “logic” is THE HEALING that compassion and acceptance is.

    What happens is the wounded cry and people then act like overlords telling the wounded not to be so messily “feeling” and “illogical”, even though feelings can ONLY be illogical, since they are not thoughts. The overlords tell the crier to hush up and they do so by pointing out how “illogical” the crier is being. The overlords then offer to give education to the “wrong” crier in order to make them all “right” and “logical” again.
    For years the crier has a deep unease about calling their OWN feeling “wrong” all the time. This erupts in a breakdown. To which yet more and more “logical” priests of “reason” step forward and say the breakdown is “illogical” and “wrong”. New THEORIES are pressed into the fingers of the crier and if they take up those new THEORIES they may think it a rescue. They may think so if the THEORY declares them “right” instead of “wrong”.

    FEELINGS are NEITHER “right” or “wrong”. FEELINGS just ARE. YOU either understand them emotionally or you don’t. You either ACCEPT your own feelings or you don’t. But feelings are not “wrong”. There are no “wrong” feelings. There can only be “wrong” outward behaviour. Behaviour is NOT feelings. To behave in an outward way needs the trigger of a thought. A decision. A “logical” planning executive decision. It need not even be your own decision if you are a puppet on a string.

    If you BUY that your crying feeling is “wrong” because it is not a feeling that can be explained by “extreme rationalism” then all you need to do is chuck out the “logic”. Do not apply it to your feelings. Feelings are just feelings. You do not have to explain them. You do not have to explain why you want “love”, yet “logic” would have you give a reasearch paper on “why”.

    If you BUY that you need to be armed with an intellectual THEORY as to why you feel sad then you will become a THEORY BULLY to someone else. You will produce reams of statistics and percentages and university studies and scans and countering whistleblower articles and activist graphs and political shenanigans and almost anything that you can squeeze LOGICAL EXPERT FINDINGS from. To Do Battle with OTHER LOGICAL FINDINGS.

    But NONE of this being “right” “right” “right”…

    is LOVE.

    Being “right” may restore your injured prestige and that alone may seem all the healing you ever need, a kind of justice, or revenge.

    But what you really may find greater healing from is realizing you do not need a theory to defensively counter riposte at other overlord’s theories. You never needed to “logically” explain your tears AT ALL. If someone in your vicinity demanded a “logical” explanation before they would find you deserving of love or even respect then that is NOT someone to be feeling ill around.

    There has been the psychiatric THEORY for why you feel the way you do. Perhaps what you have really is a disease that is causing hallucinations and knowing this much may help you feel not “wrong” since you truly cannot help being ill. Some people who receive that rationale may LIKE that THEORY and so it consoles them enough to help them survive. Who are you to dare them they are “wrong”?

    Whatever heals YOU is only for YOU to choose. Whatever heals another human being who is quite separate from YOU is ONLY for that other unique individual to choose as THEIR OWN choice of healing.

    Some other people loathe traditional psychiatry and much prefer the trauma and abuse THEORY as to why they feel as upset as they do. That also is a choice of enhanced understanding. An understanding of them not being “wrong” for feeling as they do. Like the disease model the trauma and abuse model ALSO declares that you are NOT “wrong” for feeling anguish. BOTH of these THEORIES for why you are crying are coming from neat “logical” analysis and “consensus opinion” over what you have “got going on in you”. Either “free choice” of theory might have a big grain of truth in it FOR YOU as an INDIVIDUAL, if you resonate with either one as YOUR prefered healing way of regarding yourself.

    All “logical” theories are fine so long as they do not become overt BULLYING.

    If your feelings want to choose the disease model because it brings you comfort for whatever reason then LET NO ONE TELL YOU that YOUR FEELING is “WRONG” or that what feels like a healing view to YOU is illogical and “WRONG”.

    Even if your theory has weird logic that says you are ill because your cat is an Amazonian leopard who communicates with a Shaman, THAT is what feels most comforting and healing TO YOU in that moment. And provided it is harmless as a weird “logical” belief then allow it.

    Psychiatry is comparable to a weird “logical” belief at times, one that many derive solace from.

    Neither logic
    nor reason
    nor rationalism
    nor theories
    are ever bad.
    They are lovely free choices. Many love being theoretical all day. It is a game.

    But what IS BAD is BULLYING. And since bullying often wears the soft soled sneakers of “logical explanation” and being “a rescuer” or “righteous healer”, it is good to be aware that IF YOU do not like a THEORY that is being shoved at you as if it is THE ONLY WAY you are feeling feelings of suffering….then politely tell that pushy so and so to shove their theory up their metaphorical gangway.

    What happens when enough people gather in a mob and say that THEIR LOGICAL THEORY is the ONLY way, either the disease model or the trauma model, is that they CAUSE ILLNESS by telling you that IF you do not AGREE to be rescued and fixed in THEIR MANNER then you are not only shamefully “WRONG” but you are somehow to BLAME for the world not being rescued and fixed. That is when “LOGICAL THEORY” ceases being a healthy choice or game or helpful understanding and instead becomes a BULLYING pontificating, righteous, persecutor of the free and the individual people of feeling.

    Such bullying imposition to save the world with a consensus opinion righteous THEORY can inveigle a way into the leadership in psychiatry.

    BUT it can ALSO inveigle a way into antipsychiatry if antipsychiatry grows a pet theory that everyone has to pay lip service to.

    What I see occurring is the calling of ALL psychiatrists and their patients “wrong” for not espousing the new rhetoric and new LOGIC.

    Whilst I feel that indeed psychiatry has made rather a lot of patients who should never have had their ordinary feelings called “wrong”, and that bullying has to end, I do feel that severe mental conditions cause illness to the people who know they feel that ill, and that these need more than some stranger calling those illnesses fabribations that are “wrong”.

    In short nobody should ever ever ever call ANYONE “wrong” i their OWN understanding of why they are crying.

    But “LOGIC” fetishizes telling everyone that they do not know themselves at all. And “LOGIC” is pumped up by telling everyone that their failure to “know themselves properly” and be puppets on strings marks them as LAZy.

    This is inadvertantly, the hissing cat that psychotherapy let out the bag.

  • My first job had a lady boss with eyes like cold brown pebbles. The only time they lit up was when she was fervid at saving the job. She accomplished this miserable task by telling me to use a toothbrush to wick away particles of dust on glitzy cut crystal drink decanters. Hundreds of engraved bottles and vases on glass shelves. She had me squeeze myself into a glass display case that turned carousel slow, so that collisions of glass ornaments piled up in my hair. She had long discussions with me on greasy thumb prints. I had to zap them quick as the tongue of a chameleon. She thought I was pretty and once or twice preened my outfit like I was one of her best sellers.

    Being schizophrenic is a full time job. It is a perpetual lockdown, lock in, lock jaw. It is hard brutal work because it brings its own hallucinated bosses to your buttons to tell you that you did them all “wrong”.

    I am sure I irk some people by talking about my schizophrenia, and I must say I do get caught up in the antipsychiatry dispute. The row.

    But I hope that some people who hurl decayed fruit at my schizo kimono will one day remember what sounding eccentric goes like, so that in future they too can be adorned by such a kimono of their own, when the world grows decidedly colder towards ANYONE with ANY “free choice” to be who they are.

    I have seen the future.

    It is lovely.

    But before it comes there will be many who do not want anyone to enjoy their freedom to just be who ever they are. They will use “logic” to bewilder. I am not talking about any one group. It will be everywhere. Like a metaphorical virus. One that disables your OWN KNOWING. A virus that masquerades as love and liberty.

    I am not talking about the government or things like psychiatry or the usual…rather I mean “a mindset” that is taking over. It is alluring and cathartic and leads humanity in tough direction. But it is better to reserve yourself for yourself and not get swept up.

    The future will sort it all out. The future will be good. But until then worries about climate change and extreme “rationalism” will dominate more than simple love.

  • Was just a smidgen grumpy when I wrote that.

    I get a bit humourless at seeing too many arguments put forward against the illness I have by those who have never had it.

    All this hunting for the evidence and then the evidence about the evidence and then the evidence hidden in the evidence and then the evidence that once was and then the evidence that will be soon, as soon as the brain scans plop from the photocopy machine and match the evidence about the liar and then evidence about the truther and all the “right” “wrong” “right” “wrong” “right” “wrong” about my hellish illness that at least once a day has me wanting to turn my brain into a tunnel of light….

    it is not helping ME.

    I truly do not care that it does not.

    I care about my schizophrenic SISTERS and BROTHERS who KNOW that their hallucinations are an illness and they KNOW hallucinations are not mere “trauma”.

    For THOSE schizophrenic SISTERS and BROTHERS being ill ought not to immediately mean “treatment”.

    It ought to mean love.

    By getting rid of the idea of illness in order to get rid of “treatment” may be grand for some, maybe even particular people who want to slip back into “normalcy” in the “consensus opinon” landscape.

    But I KNOW schizophrenia is such a horrible illness it cannot be “fixed” just by calling it an “idea” and overturning that idea for a newly championed idea.

    It would be like telling any people with a congenital syndrome that it was all in their head.

  • Bradford, I may use the word you later in another context but I do not mean specifically you. I just mean generically everyone as eight billion yous.

    Bradford, I am impressed by your tolerance of me. I mean it sincerely. I was expecting a flung egg not a warm welcome.

    The Hearing Voices Network is, from my own visits to it, a kind of a nice belief.
    It is a beautiful accepting belief. I love it limitlessly.

    It does what all beliefs ought to do, make you MORE YOU, not less you.

    I don’t mean more you as in a textbook idea of what a perfect “fixed” standard humanoid should be like. I mean so very much you that you go home “unchanged”. You go home a complete mess.
    But feeling heard.

    It is very refreshing when a belief loves you enough to not want to ever change you.

    That’s the magic.

  • Ahemmm, cough,
    You think the moon in pisces I mentioned was conjecture? Care to discuss the yod and moon’s nodes and placidus versus equal house and conjuctions and trines and sesquisquares and oppositions and the nadir and how uranus causes sudden unheaval whereas pluto causes slow implosions and how neptune is more psychically creative than playful cheerful jupiter and how having venus in twelfth house makes a person find no love in life but in the beyond, so spiritual love?

    All cultures discover their own typologies, ways of figuring out what makes us all different. Those typologies may be in soft focus “lore” or “morality tales”, of which each culture bestows its own outlandish imagination, or the typologies may a hint of fussy “logic”, as in Mayan superstitious numeracy and calendars, dates when gods do marvels and dates when specific people ought to. Astrology flirts with “logic” each time a natal chart requires a mathematical compass to assess where in the celestial hemisphere the cosmic bodies were stationed, the sun and mars and so on. The “logic” will tell you who you are, says astrology. Like it or not, people lap that up because everyone wants to be told what they need to know, which is that there is nothing “wrong” with them. They want their being a Taurus or a Capricorn to mean they are loveable. It is refreshing to feel that love is so simple, simple as being a Leo. Thank God, they do not have to try hard anymore. But the “trying hard” often comes intitially from feeling all “wrong”…by being told they are “all wrong”….by some other school of “logic”, or some other typology that pins them as a nutter. Not a Leo.
    So what you have in a mixed bag of a civilization is a “merging” of many conflicting tribal typologies all vying with each other as to who has the “right” kind of analytical knowledge of “the standard humanoid”. Whose typology is correct and worthy and “logically right”.
    Psychiatry is one such tribe or culture, just like astrology is. Psychiatry saw a virtue in advancing from medieval astrology by making that sort of typology more “practical”, and less astronomically romantic and “feeling”, since astrology still had a lot of charming “feeling” in it. Psychiatry said that although astrology was “logical” with its quasi scientific charts and set squares it tended to be so overly sentimental that it sounded “mad”.
    What psychiatry’s typology wanted to do was not sound so “mad”. So it emulated doctorly bone sawing practical medicine. Erradicating emotionality. This was not cruel on the part of psychiatry to become so “logical”. They had seen what hocus pocus superstition had done in the Inquisition and wanted no part in knee jerk cruel witch hunts of the past. They feared going down the sentimental or imaginative path, but some of that fear was coming from the way ANY “logical” way of life becomes “estranged” to inner emotions and forgets what those are. When that occurs “feelings” become the enemy, the “other”.
    So inadvertantly psychiatry found half of its professionals rushing to protect people from a “madness” that could get them knotted to the stake, as such those psychiatrists were healers, but half of them were applying cold clinical “logic” out of the fear of “feelings” connected to the chaos and looseness of madness.

    Fear creeps into ANY culture. It can take hold in the culture of astrology, in verbose text books on astrology, that use typology to highlight peoples differences, and it can take hold in the culture of psychiatry, in its textbooks that try to explain differences.
    There is no harm in ANY culture. No culture is a bully. The ingress of unnecessary fussy punitive “logic” makes some people in that culture or religion or society become A BULLY. A culture will be a safe house for many bullies if it enshrines “logic” more than “love”.
    But just because a culture goes through an eruption of bullying does not mean that to stop the bullying you have to erradicate the culture. You just have to ban the bullying.
    Which is why I court unpopularity here in feeling that psychiatry as a culture, being as potty as astrology, is harmless. Harm only saturates a culture when it is destabilized by an over emphasis on “reason” rather than “feelings”. But this dynamic can occur in ANY culture, even ballroom dancer culture or yoga culture or priestly culture or even antipsychiatry culture.

    It can happen ANYWHERE because of one appalling truth humans like to swerve pondering over. It is this….


  • Beautifully illuminated.

    I would say also though that there is a collective function of madness, in the way a crowd stirs and seethes and shakes up into chaos. It becomes uncontrollable, by “logic”, perhaps the rationalism from the traditions.

    But the unusual thing in this era is the way “logic” in psychiatry, promoted itself via the acceptance of designations of madness. This has made the crowds awkward about seething out of control and becoming freed by madness, lest they look…. well ……mad.
    So instead they have been more inclined to fight fire with fire by fighting “logic’s” imposition of control with retorts that are just as “rational”. But this leaves madness out in the cold. The joy of madness and the healing found in madness as a remedy and riposte has to be put away. Like putting away childish things. But this then moves “logic” from psychiatry over to antipsychiatry. And since “logic” is how humans bully and control each other’s “free choices” it could mean antipsychiatry grows enamoured with rationally “making sense” far more than “making love”.

    To sound a bit Hippie there.

    Since antipsychiatry might not see the relief of being mad as seeming like anything other than “proving psychiatry correct that everyone is dim”, antipsychiatry could become rigidly the opposite of lovely collective madness. Even though there is a great deal of healing to be discovered in madness, individually and collectively. This is because madness aligns more “with feelings”. That is why “logic” finds the mad threatening to its neurotic need for neatness.

    But any society will go through growth phases where either there is too much “logic” stiffening civilization with rules so that nobody can speak or move, or society is cavorting and collapsing into in a cheerful Woodstock mud bath of “emotion”. It is like breathing….breathe logic in for five years…breathe out feelings for four….breathe logic in…..breathe out feelings. But “logic” is a bit of a breath holder until everyone is blue in the face.

    In the cross over there can be a melee of besuited activists. These words do not seem to belong together. Feelers wearing the badges and trappings of logic. It is all over social media. Millions of madness campaigns that are still pushing “facts, facts, facts” and “data” and “proof” and “evidence”, so that the old “logical” traditions being poked by proof will cave in and exhale. Yes, campaigns do need it! They need a bit of “logic” to spar and dialogue and stop the damage that “logic” does when it has grown devoid of all contact with “feeling”. Bad treatment needs stopped and if everyone is too wonderfully mad to pick up a phone it will not. But what I am always driving at is “balance”.

    By the way it is not that I do not like suits. I do. And it is not that I do not like “logic” and rules and order. I do. It is that I do not like deceit. It is not necessary.

    I am away to divert my madness towards Jamie in Outlander.

  • How very peculiar! I made a similar comment or two recently before catching this article right now. Thank you for your explorations of this debate.

    I chime with much of what you say. However, I wonder if even in this kind of topic the comments, each of them perhaps going to be brilliant and even genius, might weigh up the “logic” in what those old scholars said. To me the actual madness of our species is this over valuing of “cerebral cudos”.

    And because that “normalcy” seems the real madness to me then my own madness is a countering remedy.

    As I get better and better at being mad I find that I wince when I see a long academic dry screed of research. My mind has always swiftly binned the imposed “facts” that were stuffed by academia into it. I have nothing to regurgitate. I kick out “logic”. But I have not gone far enough and its faint echoes still drive me mad in that former way.

    I love my madness.
    But like most loves it is trying to finish me off.

    By this I mean I have two responses here. That madness being a remedy against the tyranny of the world’s “logic” is a form of blissful healing. But equally since madness is the very essence of the uncontrollableness of the “illogical” it can be as frightening and startling and every bit as tyranical as the world’s overbearing and vindictive “logic”.

    I love my madness.
    Yet it has me ill, ill, ill a lot of the time.
    And nobody likes feeling ill, not even the mad.

    So see it like this…madness is a liberation and it feels lovely for that. It becomes healing. Like as if it is a nature god who leads you away from tyrannical “logic” from the world. It helps you be an escapee. However a price is paid because you become hostage to a force far more powerful than even “logic” was. You then try to bargain and negotiate with that force. And you may use lots of “logic” to do so. But the force of madness does not listen to your “logic” any more than you listened to the world’s “logic” when you opted for your own healing. When that rubicon is crossed there is no going back. The force of madness has you. It decides when to wake you and when to nurse you and when to feed you and when to thump you with three hours of relentless hallucinations. No begging makes it stop.
    But curiously when that force becomes imposing and insistent and even pushy, it seems pushy towards you in the same way that the “logical” judges all over planet Earth are pushy.

    To this bullying you become one long wail.

    L E A V E ME A L O N E

    is the cry that comes out of your very heart.

    You howl it to your madness and you howl it to all the rational nitpicking punitive people.

    But your very howl IS MADNESS
    yet it is of a pure sort that saves you and saves you and saves you.

    So much so it becomes a cackle. A crone’s shriek of glee.

    And THIS is what you answer the world’s “logic” with. Rogue gibberish.

  • I am glad Robert wrote his book. I gave up antipsychotics before I ever knew of it. Many do so since the drugs side effects are hard to bear.

    I am NOT however in alignment or groupthink with the binning of language. Even the words used in traditional diagnosis are not something I think need to change AS A CHOICE. By this I mean that if a person wants to call their illness by a traditional diagnosis I see no problem with it.

    The diagnosis of schizophrenia is one I use FOR ME because it does help ME make sense of MY anguish. Whatever helps me should be fine for other people to permit, if not then they are telling ME how to think.

    In a similar light I feel that for me being schizophrenic is part of a unique culture. I believe all cultures HAVE A FREE RIGHT to not be told how to think.

    Antipsychiatry has sometimes seemed to me to be a faith or culture, with its own values and innovations.

    I believe outsiders can become jealous of any culture and seek to undermine it.

    I see this as happening to my culture of schizophrenia or even just any madness.

    It is true that there are aspects of being schizophrenic that have had bad treatment, just as native tribal groups have had bad treatment. But if native groups are supposed cease being who they want to be and cease their language and lore in order to stop bad treatment being given to them THEN THAT IS ALSO BAD TREATMENT of their preferred culture.

    It is a jealous outsiderish attempt to nullify the expressiveness and language and poetry and art and genious inventiveness and creativity and history of a peoples who through no fault of their own have been victimized again and again and again.

    It is not called victimizing but is rather called “normalizing”. And just as the aboriginal children were forced into “normal” clothes to become puppets on strings for the latest politics or paradigm so too is the unashamedly schizophrenic individual argued out of their words and clothes and poems and dreams.

    They are told this “normalizing” is “for their own good”. The schizophrenic hears it from psychiatry and antipsychiaty. The missionary and the general.

    Schizophrenia is a culture. It keeps an archive all of its own. Van Gogh, Leonora Carrington, Phillip Dick, and the billions of street bards and homeless gurus and philosophers and mathematicians. I know of no person who has not been inspired by meeting a schizophrenic and immersing themselves in that culture.

    The schizophrenic has always been the beggar at the banquet. Told what to say. Told how to think. Told what to read. Told to refrain from owning their own schizophrenic “free choices”.

    Meanwhile their words and rhymes and poems and visions and wet oil paintings are continuing to be sacked from open windows, carted off in wheel barrows, to decorate the dens of puppets on strings.

    I know what it is.

    It is cultural vandalism.

    It is cultural theft!

  • Medicine and herbalism and sowing all doffed a plumed hat to Astrology. A surgeon barber consulted apothecaries who consulted birthcharts and synastry charts and horology astrology to see the most conducive time for “a treatment”.
    Father TIME, the GREAT HEALER, was more respected in the medieval epoch than in our frenetic era. Apothecaries who poured over astrology charts and advised kings of what auspicious hour to pee in piss pots and do battle, often rose to eminence in extraordinary regal turrets.

    In many ways because ancient Babylonion astrology is the parent of modern medicine then Big Pharma and maybe also teeny wee pharma came out of astrology. The vast river of humanity’s flirtation with rock solid undeniable certainty.

    Comically it is a river of certitude also drowning its bickering opponents.

    I prefer to see reality as a mirage. A mirage is chaotic and cannot ever be made all certain.

    In a mirage a person experiences reality as completely real. That “reality” has it that two plus two equals four and when you eat a lemon it feels chilly. Real is real “inside” the mirage. But the container of that “realness” is not real at all. That container or background web of light or vibration or frequency is the mirage. We are just too embedded in it to be aware of it. But as soon as you do become aware of how the whole of reality is inside a mirage it makes “logical” analytical correct “real” not something you need take quite so solemnly anymore. You are liberated from having to take life so seriously. The only thing you need take for real are peoples real feelings. And your own feelings of course. It all becomes a kind of heaven. Unfortunately the main force that insists we take reality and life too seriously is “logic”. It runs on adherence to laws and rules but a lot of the time “feelings” are not very amused by those. If you become aware of the way reality cannot be taken too seriously since it fits in a mirage then nothing you want to be exploring can be deemed serious or NOT serious…it transcends such pithy judgements. Therefore to regard astrology as serious or NOT serious is besides the point. The question then becomes….Do you enjoy it?

    Does dabbling in starsigns make your “feelings” feel good? Does astrology or anything you are curious about in the gigantic mirage make you “feel better”? If the answer is “yes” then there is nothing “wrong” with your “feeling” about astrology.

    By the way mine’s a Gemini. Moon in Pisces. Grand water trine. Everything besides in twelfth house. The asylum of the natal chart.

  • To me the most meaningful times in my life were precisely the most agonizing, such as when my dear father perished and my wonderful sister and my lovely grandparents. And when I deeply loved and deeply lost a beloved suitor and wore nothing but black for six months and became as thin as a shoelace. It seems my whole life has been one of knowing the value of things in losing them again and again until the very yearning itself almost takes substance and form and to that I cleave my love.

  • I could say that mental illness is on the rise because life is less secure than it was. I could say that it is on the rise because in the past people were ashamed of mentioning that they had it. I could say that the lingo and jargon of psychotherapy has seeped into the very cradle as a nursery rhyme we are all brought up with and so to “fit in” we have now bicker in that psychotherapeutic dialect rather than a spiritual one. I could say that bodies are teeming with chemicals and that evolution depends on some of them going awry or imbalanced. I could say that nothing can ever achieve balance without the finicky finessing adjustments brought about by imbalance and that no bodily hormone or chemical is a “fixed” static ornament of accomplishment. Bodies are always both disorganized and organized. Our very spiral galaxy is both diluting into fragmentation and organizing into handome clumps called stars as it spins and spins. Our bodies are perpetually spinning. Ditto our minds. It seems dim to suggest that balance and imbalance at the quantum level can be disentangled. They are bride and groom.

    I could argue in this manner from my lowly schizophrenic hearth, shuffle papers by guttering candle light. But what would I be doing? I would simply be trying to make a faith that seems solidified by “logical rhetoric” be even more wearyingly “logical”, and no longer a lovely harmonious faith. A faith is invariably where birds of a feather flock together. There is nothing untoward in that. But when a faith starts telling rare unique individuals that they cannot join unless they “be right” in a “logical” fashion and become “different” or “change” then something else is going on beyond it just being a flock or a faith. I call it bullying.

    It occurred in the faith of psychiatry but regrettably it is now occurring in opposing faiths to it.

    This is NOT acceptance of the human being’s “freedom of choice” to be who they “feel” they are!

    Yes, I have a chemical imbalance and it causes my schizophrenia. This is my individual understanding for “me”. It does not “have to” be obeying anyone else’s “logic”, it can be my from my “free choice” to be “illogical” and preferring to go with the flow of my “feelings” and what “feels” real “to me”. I do not welcome being judged for having the “wrong” or unpopular “feeling”. My “feelings” are entirely “my own”, as are my understandings of “my chemical balances and imbalances”. It is not for any ex-psychiatrist or antipsychistrist to tell me what “my feelings” should be or what my opinions should have been in the past or should now be. A psychiatrist has never had a month of hallucinations such as I have endured for over two decades so how can “any” besuited smart “logical” person quite unaquainted with having in their head my hallucinations say they know all about my schizophrenia? How can that credential lauded person who is not experiencing my exact interior experiences of hallucination torment and who is a stranger to my own feelings ever call my knowing I have schizophenia “wrong”? Data and research and “consensus opinion” have always been bickering and qualifying and quantifying over a hypothetical standard humanoid who IS NOT ME.

    Both psychiatry and antipsychiatry hate me because I am “free” of both. Neither owns me with their “consensus opinion” and their argy bargy “reasoning”. My “feelings” are NOT reason. My inner being is “unreasonable” and this helps me feel well. In my “unreasonable” and “unapologetic” knowing for myself that I do have a chemical imbalance and that I am schizophrenic and that I do find it an experience of abject illness…knowing it is a chemical imbalance in me helps “me” feel a bit better.

    Whatever makes me “feel better” is what people ought to cheerfully want for me. Even if it is not what makes them feel better. We must all agree on only one thing, to celebrate our each unique individual “free choices” that make us alone “feel better”. But sadly what makes the “reasoners” better is proving that they are “right”. That requires making “the other” obey the assumption based on “logic” that they are “wrong”.

    It is how conquistadors imbalance a native population who have their own “freely chosen” way of knowing who they are and how they as unique individuals prefer living.

    Such bullying of anyone simply has to stop!

    There are no “wrong” feelings. And that includes how I feel about my illness. Or even that my “feelings” conclude it to be an illness. Yet people in both psychiatry and antipsychiatry want to establish power over me and tell me they are “right” about “me”. Me! A person they have never met.

    Being “right” is not being “love”.

    Being “right” about strangers, as if they are narrow, textbook standard researched humanoids, is the biggest sickness the globe is facing.

    So, with weariness of soul I choose to triumphantly have people call me “wrong”… my going with the flow of my own “feelings” and my own knowing that I actually DO have a chemical imbalance. I may be one in a billion who believes this. I may be THE ONLY SCHIZOPHRENIC who ever was born. It matters not to me if this turns out to be the case. I have zero wish to have anyone else accompany me in my lowly schizophrenic shepherd hut. I am NOT RESPONSIBLE for the debacle of bad drug treatments. Nor am I responsible for the way society has been lambasting schizophrenics for being “wrong” in a differently predictable way. To most “logic” driven civilizations the “feeling” creatures in the human stock will always be “wrong” simply because they live by their honest gut “feelings” and “intuitions” and have the audacity to believe them.

    My “free choice” cannot be controlled.

    If your “free choice” is to declare that you do not have a chemical imbalance then I fully and lovingly support your choice for you. I have no wish to change you or your choice since your choice will be dramatically different in how it makes you feel better.

    For a century theologians, who were a bit like psychiatrists, could not shake off the “logic” they arrived at that had them pompously and “factually” declaring that female foetuses developed a month or so AFTER male foetuses. You could say that those priests of “reason” had more than “eighty years” to fathom that female foetuses and male foetuses develop in tandem, yet it seems science needs to brush under the carpet all impeding traces of the former emblazoned “facts” of science to surge forward in leaps and bounds. I gather we still do not “factually” know for certain the “cause” of the brain disease of epilepsy. It used to be called “falling down sickness” but just because it was called that did not mean a shrugging off of its real devastating impact. People who felt they had seizures were STILL BELIEVED. God forbid but in those days it would have been a cruel abuse to call them a shivering liar, or a lazy entitled malingerer, or a person of sin avoiding the psychotherapeutic confession box.

    I am told by my angels to come away from this website. There is a problem with the Hoover Dam.

  • I am the BeliefMaker.

    I am a travelling salesman of beliefs. In my raincoat pockets are all sorts of methods for building your own belief.

    As I outlined in my previous comment the world has many beliefs. I say a planet can never have enough.

    The problem on our planet is there is one dominant belief. It is the religion of “logic”.

    It is the worst dogmatic religion to befall humanity.

    And just as the inculturating conquistadors imported their belief into lands not of their origin, the religion of “logic” has soaked into the soil of everyone’s fertile imagination.

    The absorption of the religion of “logic” has bedded in to the Jesus faith and the Moses faith and the Buddah faith and every simple “emotional” and beautiful, joyful, imaginative, loving faith.

    This is because “logic” is at war with “feelings” on this planet and so it cannot let the “feeling of love” win. Instead it has to chaperone feelings and judge feelings and critique feelings and humiliate feelings and bully feelings until whatever sweet belief that the religion of “logic” and its verbose complicated rhetoric seeps into becomes a simple belief turned rigid with impossible “rational laws”.

    There are ONLY THREE LAWS any human ought to abide by ethically.

    Do not kill, do not abuse children, do not be cruel.

    If everyone honoured only those three laws the planet would be at peace.

    Instead, the religion of “logic” takes over from “love” in ANY faith and imposes “rational control” over every “free choice”. Until an individual cannot be who they harmlessly choose to be. They get told they are “wrong”. This lifetime of being called “wrong” causes such a wound that in order to heal it there grows a wish to pronounce self “right”. But to do so means finding lots of “others” who are “different” to declare “wrong”….”logically wrong”.

    It is the foundation of bickering.
    I am right but you are wrong..No I am right but you are wrong..No no I am right but you are wrong. Until a finger hovers over the tomato red nuclear pushbutton.

    So lots and lots of screeds of analytical data is presented to argue over who is “wrong” and who is “right”. Often being a puppet on a string and appearing noddingly obedient to “logical” rules offers a person an escape from looking “wrong”. They may want to escape such criticism since often the “wrong” are “logically punished” for failing to abide by hundreds of the religion of “logic’s” laws…laws that have nothing to do with the only three ethical laws humans ever need care about but are instead laws about what you can read or say or not say or eat or write or paint or who you are allowed to talk to or not talk to or which celebrity you must call a liar even though you have never met that fellow human.

    The internet is a promoter for the religion of “logic”. It is its loudspeaker, spewing bickering laws at you to stop you being “wrong” in your own “free choices”, as if your “freedom of choice” is a new kind of traitor devilishness. Or love is.

    The religion of “logic” is THE WORST THING to ever occur to humanity because it worships certainty more than doubt.

    Since all individuals are in a process of evolution in their hour or day or week or year, no spectator can ever say they know that individual. Therefore there should always be a respectful curiousity on approaching any individual, not cast iron “know all” certainty.

    To punish an individual requires a hubristic level of “certainty”.

    What the religion of “logic” likes best of all is “certainty”.

    Human certainty has caused climate change.

    The religion of “logic” does not tolerate “feelings” because they are unreliable and ever evolving. But by mistrusting “feelings” what “logic” arrives at is a mistrust of “the feeling” of “love”.

    So by the time the religion of “logic” has swept like conquistafors into any faith, any faith at all, or swept into pleasant curious doubting explorative science, or swept into any impassioned campaign that just wants to make “the local area a better place” it has swapped “love” for “laws”.

    The religion of “logic” takes a beautiful imaginative “feeling based” response to the environment and turns it into something of a bickering, disdainful, intolerant of difference, humourless, overly serious, diligent, workaholic, rule riddled, miserable nightmare.

    That loveless finicky policing nightmare is meant to improve the planet?

    That nightmare finds its impressive way into ANY GOOD CAUSE and turns it into a beholden regime with catty laws and regulations and unwelcoming stipulations that see “wrong” in those who do not want “logical” advice but prefer their own ways. The religion of “logic” invents enemies on every street corner. Often those “enemies” are merely the childish or playful or joyful. Anyone of “emotion”. Particularly mothers. The most “feeling” ones.

    A mother is an archetypal symbol of someone who says you can be “free” to be who you want to be and all of your “free choices” that are based on your “feelings” need no explanation and all of your growing into your independant choices are a sign of health and wellness and are lovely and delightful.

    The religion of “logic” is at war with “feelings”, so it cannot tolerate what your inner mother embraces, the emotions that inspire your “free choices”.

    It is not beliefs that are humanity’s problem.

    There are many beliefs as I have said in my other comment yet there are billions of humans and NOT ONE HUMAN is the same as any other. They are all unique. So why are there not billions of unique beliefs?

    It is because the religion of “logic” entraps people in host religions that those people have not chosen. Some are stuck there because they are afraid of being bickered at for being supposedly “wrong”. Something that the religion of “logic” imposes into ANY science or paradigm or religion as a value more important than “love”.

    The more beliefs people choose to make or belong to the merrier. Because ideally a world of nine billion happy beliefs, a belief for each individual’s own preference, would be healing. What this looks like is each person finding their OWN WAY of BEING in life. Which could be an Atheist way or scientism way or a Jesus way or a Buddha way or a Krishna way or a Quaker way or a tossed salad medely of many beliefs.

    Some people want the traditional ways, even the psychiatry way. And some individuals want the holistic way.

    If it is for you to judge then perhaps you are unwittingly in the religion of “logic”. Knowing what’s best for someone.

    There is integrity in allowing space for “doubt” that you truly know anyone at all.

    People may champ at the bit and say “leave my free choice to be logical alone!”.

    I am not talking about “logic” so much as the religion or global cult of “logic”. You can have it. That is fine. I do not want it.

    I prefer my “free choices” to be illogical, mad, and pleasantly schizophrenic.

  • I have made a couple of comments but they are slow to appear for some reason so this might sound strange but it wants said, I feel.

    I heard of a group called the Aimites, who have built a belief called Aim. That group all live in one huge farmstead and grow their own nourishment. They are profoundly anti-psychiatry. They all share histories of having been abused, either by their absented families or by the education system or by state hospitals or by government regime. They honour holistic ways of healing the broken. They treasure the different. They see every individual as an autonomous human being to be listened to by the heart and respected. They cleave to one another in the spirit of equality and justice. They need nothing from the outside world to which they have abandoned all hope of improving. This reliquishment of having to “fix everything” in “the world” decreases their stress and this reduction in agitation becomes itself a wellspring of healing for the community. They grow in wellness just from that. Outside visitors notice how well the community looks, how joyful and welcoming and healed. This causes visitors to flock to the Aim belief in droves because they feel “the love”.

    But at one point a charismatic person joined the faithful little community and told everyone they would have to sort out the whole world. The charismatic person said that millions were dying daily and it was up to the community to “fix” all of “that”.

    Soon the once happy community began to experience untold stress and nightmares and pressure from hourly ruminating on statistics. They began to feel upset and distraught and unwell. The charismatic one told them that they felt unwell because “the world” was not “sorted out” yet. The community were told to work harder at rumunating on the depressing statistics. They soon could not sleep at night from thinking about all the little children in the world who were not rescued from familes and education and hospital and government and so on. By getting no rest or peace or sleep over these horror stories the community grew unwell and in such unwellness grew in neediness themselves. They began to burst into tears without any cause and soon the charismatic champion explained that their tears were obviously “for” the millions of desperate people in “the world”, a planet that the community should work night and day to “sort out”.

    After a year of this the community members felt like walking wounded. They shuffled exhaustedly into their farmsteading cottages that had been turned into offices and burderned by colossal pointless stress they began to “feel” like “the world” that needs “fixed”. In this regard they ceased healing themselves enough to be healing for anyone. Rather they became more ill than the ill whom they were trying to deliver from evil in “the world”. They stopped looking “welcoming” to outsiders, they stopped sounding interested in equality and justice. They just wanted to talk about how much anguish they felt. Talking like that became a form of therapy but it meant that the only way to feel relief was in talking of desperation. Soon the once lovely little belief called Aim, and its community of faithful visionaries called Aimites, began to “blame the world” for not being an immediately “fixed world”. As if “the world” were an imprisoning blue ball on a chain that prevented them, via obligaltion and duty, from just living and loving and having joyful fun.

    It was as if “fixing the world” by “saving everyone in it” had become the new way to pass muster enough to enter the gates of heaven. So that “shirking any responsibility” to “make the world a better place” had become a new type of “cardinal sin”. The much vaunted charismatic person who could not rest in bed until all million people were “fixed” did not realise how miserable by this duty he himself was. No single human being can “fix the world” and yet he had swallowed the devotion of others that said that he could. This meant he could never afford to seem “broken”. It would be “unforgivable”. To fall asleep on the job would seem a luxury only the self indulgent would be delayed by. But if he could not afford to seem broken as he busied himself in “fixing the world” then he would have to choice but to squash all of his exhausted, broken feelings deep down in order to look stoic and invincible and practical.

    Soon everyone in the community were doing something similar, bravely ignoring their own brokenness in order to “fix the world” or bursting into tears at the slightest breeze and then “blaming the world” and all its dim sheep-like millions for not being “fixed” fast enough. Either of these reactions grew an unacknowledged resentment “at the world” for “the world” always expecting “super human” levels of stress and compassion and feelingless endurance.

    Soon all the visitor was met with was a wall of resentment that the visitor was not “doing more” themselves to “fix the world”. It was as if the visitor was made unwelcome. As if the visitor was a sullen misbehaving “world” that kept flat out refusing to “change” or be “fixed”. A bit like how burnt out and stressed nurses used to see psychiatric patients as “refusing to be fixed”.

    The visitors felt “blamed” for something without being able to ever figure out what exactly. Soon the charismatic person chased after the visitors and produced evidence of why the visitors “should change”. If the visitors declined to modify their choices or become one with the stressed community the charismatic person would present fussy “logical” arguements as to why “the world needed fixed”. The visitor might say that the community is the world and that it is easy to mend, by just rediscovering “the love” that was there in its original founding. The planet is made up of billions of such communitites, so much so that if each one focused on healing itself from within this would soon cover the planet like a patchwork quilt, each patch or community all beautifully healed and back to normal and repaired again. And being so full of harmony, rest, joy and love, would be as an oasis in a desert to the millions of miserable.

    Gosh! I have just seen how Aim could unintentionally look like MIA spelled backwards. I do think that MIA maybe should become “a belief”. I do not see why not. A belief is a fantastic thing. There are seven thousand on planet Earth. Who would object to squeezing in one more? Have MIA celebrations. Have MIA healing prayers. Have MIA mood healthy diets. Have MIA comfortable bean bags and joyful singing assemblies. Have no discernable leader. Have ten leaders. Have anti-psychiatry be the bonding purpose. Have worship of the sanctity of the holistic body. Have outreach. Have refuges. Have communal get togethers. Have art and crafts. Have a special place of welcome to the unbeliever, the nervous visitor, that equally autonomous individual human being who has a free right to believe in their own way.

    There is nothing but fun and joy in building a belief. All beliefs are utterly harmless. They are just specific celebrations of a specific kind of differentness.

    Beliefs only descend into bullying when they give themselves egotistically impossible obligations to “fix the world”. It is seldom a belief’s job to “fix the world” but by becoming only one “free choice” in everybody else’s world. By becoming a happy choice and the nextdoor belief becoming a happy choice and the nextdoor belief doing so and the next until all neighbouring beliefs are happy from within, this happiness spreads over the face of the planet.

    It requires sort of giving up “logically” or bickeringly or stressfully or bullyingly “fixing the world” and instead it only needs becoming the unutterable peace that the planet is dying for.


    It is not necessary to have “consensus opinion” to back up your own individual “freedom of choice”. In some regards “consensus opinion” is a club for those who cannot brave following the leader that is their honest and true and authentic “feelings”.

    A “consensus club” shuns “feelings” in favour of “logic” and uses “logic” as a mode of guilt tripping anyone who has an emotion.

    So along comes another group to take down that imposing “consensus opinon”…say psychiatry…but it does so by forming yet another “consensus opinion” club, and it uses the “language” of “logic”….say scientific logic…to kick the achiles heel of imperious “logic”. But this is like an Amazonian tribesman asking the conquistadors to go away by using the “language” that is Spanish. By using the “language” that is not particularly “feeling” to chastise an interloper that is all “logical” what is going on is THE PRESERVATION of the “language” of “logic”, and why this is foolish is because that “language” is the one used to bind a people in a “logical consensus opinion”. A situation of bondage to some authority that supercedes YOUR OWN “freedom of choice”.

    In this way antipsychiatry can, from time to time, emulate psychiatry.

    If you come accross a “consensus opinion” you do not like or agree with, just “move on”.

    No need to grind “the others” group think into dust under the boot heel of yet more hard factual “logic”.

    In the medieval era many “thinkers” of “logic” loathed the “feeling” who could not be turned into puppets on strings. Such “thinkers” did not just spar with or mock the “feeling”, they left no trace of them. That’s “thinkers” for you. To have compassion needs access to “feelings”.

    I say all this because THIS is the bigger fight of our age, not the details we all get vortexed away on.

    You can get rid of the DSM “choice” and the diagnosis “choice” because YOU think it is a rotten choice for everyone else, but in that way this is promoting a “consensus opinion” that not everyone is going to feel well about.

    I have NEVER been enamoured with antipsychotics. I think we know too little about the brain to interfere with it. MY CHOICE would be bin all pills. But I KNOW that only other actual diagnosed schizophrenics have ANY understanding of how tormenting living with schizophrenia is. There seems a willful drive at a “consensus opinion” that my feeling ill is my MISINTERPRETATION of my inmost being….as if by antipsychiatry borrowing the “logic” of “consensus opinion” to refute the “consensus opinion” of “logical science” both psychiatry AND antipsychiatry actually KNOWS more about ME than I KNOW ME.

    It is THIS “expertise” pontificating that needs to stop.

    Instead, all people ought to let adults make up their OWN mind about what is the matter with them and what will best heal them.

    I see this as like how many tribes can peacefully coexist in one forest.

    You mentioned the refuting of chemical imbalances but I would say that probably someone in menopause “feels” a chemical/hormonal imbalance. They go on HRT and feel a different sort of chemical imbalance, they withdraw from HRT and feel yet more chemical imbalance. It is ALL the experience of chemical imbalance. The original one was a brain thing. I just believe it is petty to do this…prove it prove it prove it prove it. It is so “consensus opinion”.

    I am not for medication but I am for people having the “free choice” to see psychiatry as their healer. I am yet to meet a bad doctor or bad psychiatrist or bad psychologist. I have only ever met stressed out imperfect human beings buckling under the strain of working in horrible offices.

    I am fine to discover new “consensus opinions” but it does not require bulldozering someone else’s “consensus opinon” to create it. If you want to have a picnic in a park you do not need to obliterate everyone else’s picnic.

    I did not want to comment anymore on here…but I was informed that a couple of old comments I had made a week or so ago, that got lost in the spam computer file, had been found. Yesterday I was told those apparently got published, after my ceremonious bon voyage. I realise this would make me look like a bag lady who had left the contents of her bag all over the rear hall. So I have had to come back, say a more exquisite bon voyage, curtsey and stride off. I have not browsed whether anyone has replied to any previous comments I made since I no longer have time to get caught up in doing so. I must let the matter rest.
    If anyone has a need to contact me that would be ok.

    I really have way too much to do. So I cannot comment anymore.

    I am leaving the coast since I believe a global flood is going to obliterate such regions.

  • Hello Robert,

    Once Upon A Time, Long Ago, in the beyond, two spirits looked down upon planet Earth and see that everyone is bickering. No one is allowing anyone their “freedom of choice”, their choice to be themselves. Bullying has run amok in all areas of every civilization. So the two spirits hatch a plan. They decide to help bring peace back. The first spirit, let’s call him James, suggests to the second spirit, lets call him Alan, that an enlightened or rather messianic spiritual leader might be good happening on Earth. But Alan says many such figures have been sent already. The bickering has grown worse. So then both James and Alan come up with another idea for making peace everlasting…


    It is organized that James will incarnate into human form as a world leader of fine integrity, a matchless hero in a country oppressed by another competing corrupt world leader, Alan.

    The two spirits hug each other since they love each other but know they are going to endure the difficult task of incarnating AS rivals. They know their life plan involves the theatre of bringing about war. This is because people who initially “pick a side” in the war are initially motivated by a “logical” sense of being irrefutably “correct”. This may be connected to “rules” such as coastal rules, or maritime rules, or energy pipeline rules, or religious territory rules, or economic rules, any rules. Often it is not the big rules that motivate any army. Often there is just a vague sense of “the others” and they get demonized as “wrong”. That may be all that is required to set two countries at war with each other.

    So initially those who “pick a side” can easily find a plethora of “logical reasons” exactly WHY the “others” should be stripped of their “freedom of choice”. The “wrongdoers” get villified as if “they” cause some obstacle to “freedom of choice” and the “feelings” that feed those choices.

    The “consensus opinion” of the “others” in one country gets blamed for dismissing the “freedom to be” in another country. But often this “othering” and blaming on both sides is a consequece of the way ANY “consensus opinon”, or group think, in ANY part of the globe can oppress its OWN. What is meant here is that “consensus regulations” make people ILL if their heart and soul and “feelings” are not inspired by such fussy regulations. And since regulations involve “rationalizing” and not “feelings”, people become “feeling deprived” when they nod like puppets on strings for their “consensus opinion” leaders.

    The seething ILL resentment at “having to” comply with the ENTITLED demands of “group think” combined with becoming “feelings starved” causes people to become themselves bullies and footsoldiers. As if in a regime they cannot express their real “feelings” in.

    But to leave the “group think” would mark them out as a kind of “other” every bit as suspect as the initial “others” who have been designated the title of “them”. The glue that binds “consensus opinion” often thrives on designated another group as “them”, even to the extent that the “them” must constantly have their demon “them” credentials poked and revealed. Every human group does this binding or bonding. It is not bad in itself. Birds of a feather flock together. But when a bird is NOT FREE to BE who it chooses to be it is no longer satisfying to be part of the flock. Yet to leave the group marks it out as a deviant or inexplicable or dreamy or “mad”. It becomes “other”. It may be cautioned against being a “unique individual” since that threatens the “consensus opinion”, like a sinner threatens an established church. Gradually more and more birds in the flock fear leaving and fear speaking as a unique individual. The puppets on strings thing happens more and more. But as this decending into gross bullying by the “consensus opinion” gets worse the pent up anger and ILL sensation at not being “free” to “feel”, without such “feelings” being slammed as being “wrong”, the inner resentment spills outward to the initial “others” in the country that held a separate “consensus opinion”. Ramping up the heckling of those “them” is far easier.
    But what is often being heckled is not so much “their” differentness, but living a life of soul destroying “logic” at the expense of being free to “feel”.

    What occurs then in a war is two different countries with legitimate grievances but ALSO with enormous displaced rage at “having to” be oppressed by “logic” in general throughout life. A romantic notion of an “improved” way of life beckons. That notion has vague visions of everyone understanding something “logical” and coming together in a new “consensus agreement” about it. So this architects a new paradigm, for a mass salvation, a mass healing.

    But the word “mass” should be a clue.

    You cannot be “free” to be utterly YOU if you are an insignificant add on bit of a mass. Not even in a mass suicide.

    All individuals become well when they have their own “freedom of choice” to want what they want. It is as simple as that. If they do not get this they rapidly become ILL.

    Wars are not made by the happy.

    Wars are atrocious and grotesque. But what eventually springs out of war is the exhausted obliviousness about anyone’s damn “consensus opinion”. Instead there is a return to realizing that wellness is connected to having the individual “freedom of choice” for almost laughably simple things, such as your OWN comfy bed, your OWN bicycle, your OWN books, your OWN grandparents, your OWN bowl of rice, your OWN preferred kind of herbal medicine, your OWN idea of healing, not everyone else’s “consensus” idea.

    The simple “free choices” that make YOU feel better may not make ANYONE else feel better.

    Your “choice” as born aloft on the altitude of your “feelings” CANNOT BE WRONG.

    This is because “feelings” cannot be wrong or right. The designation of wrong or right are cerebral judgements from bickering rules and arguments.

    Feelings, like breathing, and sleeping, just ARE.

    If your outward behaviour is not hurting anyone directly and intentionally then YOUR CHOICE to feel how you feel, believe what you believe, decide what you decide, be who you be, is totally innocuous and harmless. Therefore YOU being FREE to feel your OWN feelings and think your OWN thoughts is not a traitor to anything or anyone. And because freedom makes you well, and wellness is healing for all who come into contact with it, in this regard “consensus opinion” can be the demise of wellbeing.

    To LOVE can only happen when we are well with our feelings.

    Since peace is the essence of love then “freedom of choice” is needed for WORLD PEACE. But weirdly why so many people fight in wars is they are convinced that “their” brand of “consensus opinion” has to be THE ONLY way of finding peace.

    When people say wellbeing can only be found by YOU giving up your OWN “feelings” run a mile.

    What of James and Alan? They visited Earth and caused a war to help people HATE WAR and HATE HATING and instead value the love lost and value the “freedom” to each individual sleep in their own bed and warm themselves at their own hearth.

    When you read of warring leaders in history who argue and sabre rattle perhaps wonder if unbeknownst to their conscious recollection their spirit essences have each already shaken hands in a deal that is not of war but of peace.

    To every agonist comes an antagonist. A theatre piece double act. Perhaps an “R” and a “DW”.

  • There are no leaders in psychosis.

    Psychosis IS THE LEADER.

    All anyone who wants to care for the psychotic should do is just BE with the psychotic.

    Ah but leaders want to fix, heal, save, rescue, prove theories “right”, cajole, sell, bully, convert, change the psychotic.

    And for WHAT?

    For the thought leader to be awarded a prize? A thought leader who has NEVER EVER had a psychotic moment in their life?

    Antipsychiatry threw out the baby with the bath water when it threw out madness. Madness IS A GREAT BIG PSYCHOTIC BABY that confounds all fixing, bullying, converting. Madness is the last place you can BE, since you cannot DO anything whilst mad BUT BE. It is the adult’s blissful escape route back to being neonatally OUT OF CONTROL. I do not mean out of of control in a plate hurling aggressive way. No neonate hurls a plate. I mean out of control in a dreamy out of this realm passive way. Hippies.

    Enter the phrase…
    “Don’t tell me what to do”.

    There is a positive boundary establishing use of that phrase, one congruent with “freedom of choice”.

    But there is also an “entitled” use of that phrase. It really means…
    “Let me tell you what you have to do, not me”.

    Some of the people who were eager to tell everyone to scrap the word “madness” have a wish to integrate as “normal”. It may not be their OWN notion of “normal” that they ask the mad to align with but a “consensus normal”, a “group think” normal. But any appeal to a “consensus normal” by obeying petty regulations of that consensus inadvertantly scraps an individual’s “freedom of choice”.

    An individual’s “freedom of choice” will ALWAYS LOOK MAD to a tightly bonded “consensus opinion” keeping group. This is because mostly in this era “consensus” is won through “logic” and “analysis”, not fellow “feeling”.

    But “freedom of choice” is mainly arrived at through “feeling”. Do you like chocolate of cough lozenges?

    And because “feelings” are NOT “logic”, they seem to the casual observer to be inexplicable and “illogical” and “dreamy” and “mad”.

    The psychotic are full of deeply passionate “feelings” and therefore seem “dreamy” and “inexplicable” and needing rescued and made “normal”, by pickling them in “consensus ooinion” of what “normal” SHOULD look like. A bit like saying ALL “free choices” should have a certain look. Usually a tidy, together, “logical” look.

    As if saying ALL neonatals and Hippies SHOULD be calm or fixed or smiling or comprehensible or understandable. There is NO possibility that you can “freely choose” to be an anathema or inexplicable or fabulously mysterious. You and your “free choices” have to be picked though thoroughly and approved of in a group consensus way or YOU are a THEM.

    THEM the mad.

    After a few years of you being mocked by the “consensus opinion” lot for your “madness” being your last bastion of “freedom” you come to the conclusion that being mad is “WRONG”.

    This walks you into the hideous groomed impact that says being “illogical” and “feeling” is “WRONG”.

    Binning your “madness”, that is also binning your “freedom of choice” to just BE, merely because you have been told that the word “mad” links to not belonging to “consensus opinion” IS YOU STIGMATIZING YOUR OWN FREEDOM OF CHOICE to “inexplicably” make YOUR LIFE BE HOWEVER YOU CHOOSE.

    On the one hand psychosis is torment and hell. On the other hand it is full of feeling and liberation. Like a neonate.

    The great guru OSHO once said that if God gave him a choice of whether to go to heaven or hell he would choose to reside in hell since that would be where all the poets and musicians and philosophers and astronomers and dreamers and decadent party goers would be. I would suggest such “free spirits” were often thought abnormal and overly emotional and inexplicable and “mad” in their day.

    There is nothing madder than a person who inexplicably CHOOSES the type of care they as an individual want. Whether that care is Soteria House, or a funfare, or an Open Dialogue appointment, or Jesus Christ, or Astrology, or a warm bed and bowl of soup in ye ol asylum with a fartherly or motherly protective psychiatrist to pencil notes of hope.

    None of the “free choices” of care that the mad make are “WRONG”, provided that they are not bullying anyone else nor overly bullying themselves.

    Barring the way some medications do seem harmful, it is NOT that specific treatment choices are bad, it is that “consensus opinion” muddies the water over what choice it says you SHOULD choose. And WHY.

    There has been a lot of impute in antipsychiatry to spell out that the WHY given by “consensus opinion” psychiatry is because you are “mad” with an unpronounsible malady. Given that “consensus opinion” wants to take a swing at your “freedom of choice” by calling it “mad” and “illogical”, your impulse is to “think” that you ought to protest about being called a “them” who is “mad”. A huge effort arises to showcase how you are perfectly “logical” just like your accusers. Even more “logical” in fact. So super “logical” that no one can read your analytical articles without recourse to a glass of fizzy asprin.

    In this way your antipsychiatry initiative becomes yet another overly fussy rule riddled bid for “consensus opinion”, as if that is THE ONLY OPINION that matters. The theoretical opinion, the PhD Masters degree in big long jargon opinion, the niche study in a research paper’s analysis of twenty graphs opinion. Because the bullying that is always part and parcel of “consensus opinon” always grows more and more and more ENTITLED, even in something as honourable antipsychiatry, or ANY worthwhile campaign globally. ALWAYS the push for “consensus” over “freedom of choice” must come up with endless endless torturous “logic” and “reason” as to why YOUR “free choice” to just be a BIG PSYCHOTIC BABY is “WRONG”.

    It is back to the healthy phrase “don’t tell me what to do” becoming…
    “Don’t tell me I cannot tell you what to do”.

    There are plenty of people who enjoy belonging to “consensus opinion” because it becomes a sort of church of healing in and of itself.

    I am not against it.

    Increasingly though as the world fragments there are insecurities in each campaign and a pressing need to “save the world” by either “punishing” or “rescuing” everyone “wrong” or “mad” or “inexplicable” or “free”.

    A lot of nationally it is centering on the idea that everyone needs rescued from a mysterious abuse that must have turned them so confoundingly “inexplicable”, or made them “overly feeling” or turned them “irrational”. And so they need mended back to the “consensus opinion” of what is best for them, for their own good, since “logic” is always for “mad” people’s own good. And so they are taught to “analyse” their childhood by going into “analysis” to stop them being “dreamy”. They must question their whole life as if THEIR ENTIRE LIFE was “WRONG”. They must pick through their previous “free choices” and cathartically come-to during mid session and progress to some mathematical eureka moment of “fixedness”.

    They must “fix” their embarrassingly being a psychotic individual full of poertry and music and philosophy and wed to “consensus normal”.

    An arranged marriage…

    to “reason”.

    To which I say this…


  • Friends, I have to exit stage left and leave the comments section completely. There will be no more intermittent browsing from me to see what replies have come forth. I truly have to GO.

    What is occurring my pithy observations are being rummaged for cherry pickable poetic jumbles. My vibe is atravelling further afield. I am finding things I said in comments way back are surfacing elsewhere in an appropriating manner that finds my sayings grabbed and used out of context.

    Let us not forget that the Spanish Inquisition used biblical phrases out of context to lambast the FREE.

    In my life as a visionary I am delighted in sharing but I must be cautious as I also dread my peace banner being used as a patch for a holy war flag.

    The angels have been working with me for decades to ensure that I make no mistake in what I ramble about. They want me to STOP carelessly spilling phrases like fresh water pearls all over this comments section.

    The angels, whom I hourly hallucinate the company of, want to get on with convincing me that I am schizophrenic. Surprisingly I do not want to. When I protest about this they sort of hold a gun to my head and give me the mind and bodily sensations of schizophrenia.
    Laughably they say it must be done. To protect me.

    Bon Voyage.

  • I am tired my friend. Really tired. So I cannot sparkle to your sparkling riposte right now. I really DO HAVE SCHIZOPHRENIA and it makes me too ill to sleep. So please forgive me if I skip a diligent answer to this.

    When you live in a world where words are demons then everyone who uses words can be demonised.

    If I have to suffer blame for not wanting to assist in the creation of that nightmare world then I consider such blame a compliment.

    I am NOT RESPONSIBLE for how another human chooses to interpret my language, turns of phrase, witty one liners said in affectionate jest.

    Nobody “has to” love me.

    To force love destroys love. Love must always be free to become “no longer love” and then “back to being love” and then “no longer love” and then “back to being love”, because love is A FEELING and ALL FEELINGS are the sole private basic human right of the individual who FEELS them. All feelins ARE FLOWS. They are NOT static.

    RULES, so keenly lionized by cold LOGIC, DEMAND that your private interior FEELINGS be held hostage to “consensus opinion”, those “thought excercises” that pass as social improvement. Logic finds ways to tell you how you OUGHT to FEEL because logic insists there are ONLY “correct” feelings or ideal feelings or perfect feelings or saintly feelings or “therapeutic-for-everyone” feelings.

    And these days what logic is busy doing is saying you cannot LOVE yourself in ways that are not “correct”. And you cannot choose to LOVE anyone else in ways that the improving society or “consensus opinon” says are not “correct”.

    The fastest way to destroy the FEELING of flowing LOVE is to give people preachy “lessons” on how to LOVE properly, like how to “talk proper” using only Queen’s English.

    As for dying babies I lay in bed last night utterly horrified that I am wasting all my TIME in any comment section sparring back at the vanity of twisted logic rather than sending my sleeping bag to any country that needs it.

  • Robert may drown out my voice with a stack of winning articles.

    Given that I believe we all are living in a mirage, where NOTHING IS REALLY REAL then neither is “absolute” truth. So how come evidence is being busily stacked up to provide “PROOF” of ANY INDIVIDUAL of “free choice” is being A LIAR when they say they themselves know why they feel ill.

    THERE IS NO EXTERNAL EXPERT PROOF that an INDVIDUAL’s FEELING is “wrong”, especially in a MIRAGE.

    BELIEVING it is ALL a MIRAGE means we ALL begin to respect that NONE OF US ARE “RIGHT” about ANYTHING beyond our own perceptions…And GOD KNOWS what those are. I do not believe there are a convlusive stack of EVIDENCE PAPERS on that one. Penrose himself does not know what conscious existence is.

    If we do not know what conscious existence is then how can we be CERTAIN that genes are real or not real.

    In a dream called reality the ONLY truth that matters is how you yourself authentically FEEL and how your neighbour authentocally FEELS.

    Love thy neighbour!

    Even if they choose to believe in antipsychiatry or genes or philosophy or trauma or hope or drink and drugs.

    Therefore that is the ONLY thing we ought to respect in each other. What we each individually feel and conclude from our OWN FEELINGS.

    Logic is A GREAT BIG BULLY.

    Logic and reason like to pretend to dissect reality in the MIRAGE and tell people why they are not complying with the absolute truth.

    It is logic that makes kangaroo courts and tells individuals that their FEELINGS are LIARS!!!

    Logic does so to make people FEEL nothing at all.

    With all of my powerful free FEELINGS I spit on self righteous pedallers of logic.

  • Ps.

    If the brain can be vulnerable to toxic effects of medication and even trauma, to the extent of iatrogenic harm that RESULTS in brain atrophy….that RESULTS in changes to white and grey matter….that causes psychotic-like harms…and is a brain damage that perhaps has an effect on genetics…since genes are not something invented by psychiatry…then maybe….just maybe…the iatrogenic effects that seem similar to schizophrenia ARE not that far from genetic damage.

    You cannot have it both ways…
    1. The medications cause physical damage to the entire body.
    2. Nothing out of the orindinary is ever having an effect on genes.

    The dandilions in Chernobyl know genetic disruption. We are all of us steeped in a primordial soup of forever chemicals. Do not tell me that ANY part of the body is NOT “genetically modified” by that. And even on the trauma level, it is becoming clear that our bodies are not living in isolation from our environment but that our genes are ALWAYS modifying themselves as part of healthy mutation, that success story of EVOLUTION.

    Genes are not a…

    “PROVE IT”

    “DID NOT PROVE IT” done deal.

    All “DONE DEALS” smack of the worst of “psychiatry-speak”.

  • We need to move BEYOND holding people in a kangaroo court and putting them through the ordeal of proving they are not A LIAR!!!

    This is true for those individuals who know they have been wrongly diagnosed


    It is true for those individuals who know they have the correct diagnosis.

    What business is it of a cruel business man in a suit to tell a tribe they have a diagnosis they do not have at all.

    What business is it of a cruel pontificating lesson spouting activist to tell a tell a tribe of really ill people they are not ill?

    The Shaman is a lover. The Shaman has NO great interest in weeding out WHY someone says they feel ill. The Shaman does not mock them or hold them in a court and say they must be a LIAR!!!

  • If you want a million happy to call themselves schizophrenic people to come and help create a new better health care option then let individuals freely choose to call themselves whatever they want to without them being stigmatized for doing so. I am sure many want to help.

    Sadly I suspect that no help is wanted because this would mean dropping the therapeutic boost of ponificating, self righteous anger. Sadly it seems the anger IS the new health care option. Just be angry and feel a whole lot better.

    Whilst I am the first to say that accepting feelings IS the WAY to HEALING, I also have to say that my merely accepting my feelings does NOT “fix” my epilepsy, nor does it “fix” my schizophrenia. Therefore I need something more in terms of my health care.

    However, Joshua, I think it is great that you are illuminating systemic cruelty in your part of the world. I am not here to change you, or change anyone. I just do not see why I “have to” change me just to join the discussion.

    NOBODY should be trying to CHANGE ANYBODY.

    You and I actually agree on this point, on this I feel sure..

  • If you want a million happy to call themselves schizophrenic people to come and help create a new better health care option then let individuals freely choose to call themselves whatever they want to without them being stigmatized for doing so. I am sure many want to help.

    Sadly I suspect that no help is wanted because this would mean dropping the therapeutic boost of ponificating, self righteous anger. Sadly it seems the anger IS the new health care option. Just be angry and feel a whole lot better.

    Whilst I am the first to say that accepting feelings IS the WAY to HEALING, I also have to say that my merely accepting my feelings does NOT “fix” my epilepsy, nor does it “fix” my schizophrenia. Therefore I need something more in terms of my health care.

    However, Joshua, I think it is great that you are illuminating systemic cruelty in your part of the world. I am not here to change you, or change anyone. I just do not see why I “have to” change me just to join the discussion.

    NOBODY should be trying to CHANGE ANYBODY.

    You and I actually agree on this point, on this I feel sure.

  • If you want a million happy to call themselves schizophrenic people to come and help create a new better health care option then let individuals freely choose to call themselves whatever they want to without them being stigmatized for doing so. I am sure many want to help.

    Sadly I suspect that no help is wanted because this would mean dropping the therapeutic boost of pontificating, self righteous anger. Sadly it seems the anger IS the new health care option. Just be angry and feel a whole lot better.

    Whilst I am the first to say that accepting feelings IS the WAY to HEALING, I also have to say that my merely accepting my feelings does NOT “fix” my epilepsy, nor does it “fix” my schizophrenia. Therefore I need something more in terms of my health care.

    However, Joshua, I think it is great that you are illuminating systemic cruelty in your part of the world. I am not here to change you, or change anyone. I just do not see why I “have to” change me just to join the discussion.

    NOBODY should be trying to CHANGE ANYBODY.

    You and I actually agree on this point, on this I feel sure.

  • Dear Steve,

    Thank you for replying. May I say that I think you jumped to a conclusion in my comment that is nothing to do with what I was actually meaning or saying?

    I do not think I said anything specific about charlatains and their use of diagnosis.

    Whilst here I want to say that it is nobodies business if an adult who says they have a word for their own suffering “freely chooses” NOT TO EXPLORE the IdEA of a CURE that SOMEONE who is NOT THEM decides must be the cause.

    For someone to impose their idea of a cure on someone else no matter how heartfelt and good intentioned and even “right” this might be, it is an unacceptable disrespect and breach of a person’s private inner boundary and as such could constitute a kind of conversion therapy that is in itself AN ABUSE.

    What I mean is it is an abuse to tell someone they MUST look in the abuse direction for a cause of their distress, and disqualify their OWN preferred “free choice” of knowing for THEMSELVES why they feel ill.

    I am 100 percent for the erradication of all forms of abuse and this definition of abuse actually INCLUDES the abuse of gaslighting people into “having to” believe their perfectly ordinary and caring parents molested them when this may be UNTRUE.

    I feel sure you would agree that NOBODY has the “right” to steamroller over an individuals private inner boundary and go sniffing around for the “evidence” of trauma or “peel away their layers of onion” FOR THEIR OWN GOOD.

    What has occurred in society are two things.
    1. Actual sexual abuse of children is on the increase.
    2. Turning the “confession” of having been abused into a “faith claim” that society is abusive has become a mandatory requirement to “belong” in “some” echelons. But this imoposition of “mandatory” aliegience to “consenus opinion” ABOUT ABUSE also can be what constitutes ABUSE.

    As for the word choice of disorder, again I repeat that just like the word “ill” there is a personal use of that word, where an individual freely chooses to use that word, or any word they want to, to describe their OWN FEELINGS, which is something NO ONE should argue with. Your FEELINGS are YOUR FEELINGS and you can use ANY words to describe your feelings that you dam well please…EVEN IF they are apparently “the wrong” words in someone else’s idea. The words “ill” and “disorder” and “stir crazy” and “eccentric” are words ANYONE may freely use to describe THEMSELVES.

    What is QUITE SEPARATE is when an outsider or expert or activist TELLS YOU what words you HAVE TO USE to describe YOUR OWN suffering and YOUR OWN FEELINGS.

    What you, Steve, perhaps want is for nobody to ever describe their feeling of being “ill” in the same way that other people like experts have foisted on people. You maybe want to undermine the experts words as though those words are cruel. This is vallient and brave and heroic of you. To save the peresecuted is honourable.

    But when anyone at all tries to “save” someone who really does not want “saved” it is a bit like stepping into the realm of being a missionary, which is like what pioneering psychiatry was hellbent on doing.

    Do you not see that in order to not repeat the same mistakes of the bishopric of early psychiatry we all have to STOP TEACHING EACHOTHER that our OWN way of FEELING SAVED is THE ONLY WAY?

    A man who crawls into the bedroom of a kiddie can convince himself that he is “saving” the kid from the kid’s innocence and to do so he may convince himself it is FOR THEIR OWN GOOD. There is no ASKING the child what their “free choice” is.

    It is MY free choice to call my disease schizophrenia. You may say that an abusive psychiatrist “gave me” that descriptive word to call myself. I have to say that NO psychiatrist GAVE me that word. Not until long after I knew it FOR MY OWN SELF. Even a few years. And even after I had been officially diagnosed that word was NEVER mentioned again by any of my psychiatrists since they ALL wanted me to NOT limit myself by calling myself schizophrenic. They wanted me to have a NORMAL life. It is ME who KNOWS that I am incapable of a normal life, even if I want that conventional path. I KNOW my schizophrenia makes it IMPOSSIBLE for me to be NORMAL. Of this I am rather glad. I do not rate NORMAL as anything more than having to do the bidding of “consensus opinion”, which to me seems a form of ABUSE.
    Rather I follow my OWN STAR and choose my OWN NORMAL, not a psychiatrist’s notion of normal, not the normal of an activist who has never met me, not society’s idea of normal for me, not religion’s idea of normal for me, not my parent’s idea of normal for me, not politics idea of normal for me, but MY OWN choice of what FEELs NORMAL to ME.

    If someone is misdiagnosed then I FULLY encourage them to bin that shoddy imposition and ONLY concur with what FEELS their OWN NORMAL for them. If to them that means they say they were ill from societal inequality or traumatized by abuse then ONLY they can say that and know that.

    I am fed up with activism coming over like a new brand of pioneering psychiatry. Telling me what has happened to me to make my suffering real to me. Telling me how to “fix” it so I can join the latest queue of the “myth” of the perpetually “fixed” and “saved” person.

    I am already “saved”. By enjoying my liberty to use any words I please to describe my suffering from my disease.

  • According to the book “The Madness of Adam and Eve” by David Horrobin, the amazing emergence of schizophrenia coincided with the birth of civilization. He does go in to depth about paeleolithic cave art which he seems to think is created by rather schizophrenic tendencies, prerequisites to think, and more importantly feel, outside the box, the neanderthally lumpen brain box. Maybe the schizophrenics sketched the portraits of their DID pals. The idea that a name for schizophrenia CAUSES the schizophrenia, or CAUSES the misinformation of schizophrenia seems to be giving too much credence to “words”.

    Words are just words. Yes, bullies may use the words they like to use to refer to the latest batch of “them”. But the energy of bullying does not come from the words. Words are like water. Even simple water can be used to torture someone but we do not ban bits of water. To think the issue is in the water is to let the thing that causes bullying get away with destroying someting that in and of itself harms nothing.

    The word “woman” interestingly does not mean a lesser form of the word “man”. The word “woman” has as its root nothing to do with the word “man”. It is a medieval word that means something quite different. But everyone who has an eye on real estate could say that since the word “woman” was only invented in the fourteenth century then it means there is no such thing as women before then. Which means women do not exist. Which means they cannot claim their inheritance. Their “freedom of choice”.

    Whether you are “the women” or “the poor” or “the deviant” or “the rebellious” or “the peace lover” or “the insane” or “the eccentric” or “the stupid”, your word for who you like to know yourself as is not “consensus opinion” since it is your own word. That already marks you out as a “fraud” against “consensus opinion”. Who you are, who you wish to be regarded as, gets deemed “fraudulent” to rob you of any autonomy. Experts may be drawn in to deduce that “finding”, experts or activists, since sometimes these are one and the same pushy thing.
    Cultural appropriation is often done by arguing over “words”. If you do not have the “words” to describe your acre of land or your acres of personal experience then your land and your personal experiences do not exist. This game was played by the eugenicists that nobody likes but it can be unfortunately and inadvertantly played by supposed “world healers” on the very people who just like their own words for things they feel they know as their truth.

    Truly I say…

    I am schizophrenic.


    This video drew me in but one thing catapulted me straight back out again. The uglee discordant cry of “unite”.

    We are coming into an era where all of the world’s oppressed will be easily duped into thinking the best way to improve the world is for everyone to unite. As if there “has to” be only ONE voice. As if there “has to” be only ONE heart. As if there “has to” be only ONE “consensus opinion” on every “free choice” that everyone, including you as a unique individual, might like to make.

    Just why the braying of the word “unite” sounds uglee to me is because it is too easy to worship “consensus opinion” as if it is a type of GOD whose opinion matters more than your own.

    I have it on my good schizophrenic authority that the real angels and the real Divine Being who created the mirage we all inhahit have NO wish to give an opinion that matters more than YOUR OWN CHERISHED OPINION. This is because your ability to have free will enough to make your own free choices…

    IS HOLY.

    Angels rejoice when I make up my own mind about things and follow my own star. When we satisfy our own preferences we become happy. Happy people spread happiness. What is healing and conducive to world peace is happiness. So “freedom of choice” CAUSES world peace.

    Those who cry for everyone to “unite” against oppression partially understand this but as so often occurs, the “uniting” becomes a Deity rather than “freedom of choice”.

    The surge of power gained from “uniting” as ONE voice is attractive to those who have felt oppressed into having no voice at all.

    Having a collective crew of empathizers all making a “consensus opinion” and backing you up stategically may feel gratifying for those in a lonely life of struggle against any obstacle or regime. Many mouths shouting as ONE voice gets heard quicker than a solo hermit’s voice.

    But just “what” is being heard at maximum stadium volume exactly? Is it the promotion of true “freedom of choice” FOR ALL individuals or is it a supposedly “uniting” set of rules and stipulations about what you can or cannot be allowed to think, express, feel?

    If “uniting” has the notion of “rules” in it that go beyond the natural ethic of just being caring then “what” is uniting will always just be “power over” the innocuously “different”.

    Throughout human history it is clear that a new batch of imposter leaders invariably also like to amass the power of ONE voice. So those honest and earnest and caring individuals who want to end oppression by having everyone unite in all having only ONE voice, can be easily deceived by similar rhetoric and loudspeakering.
    Individuals can be charmed into finding any power hungry leaders salvific. Such leaders sway popularity by jumping on the bandwagon of new “consensus opinion” against oppression, but they do so by “dismantling” peoples individual “freedom of choice” to like whatever they authentically do like. Such imposter leaders soon say that unless individuals GIVE UP their freedom to make their own mind up about things and use their own preferred word choices then somehow those individuals are “against uniting”. And if an individual is not giving up their freedom and showing due worship of the Deity of “uniting” then that individual is treated as if a criminal or crazy person or the cause of world catastrophe.

    When even a newborn is treated as if they are the cause of world catastrophe because they do not speak in the approved, “consensus opinion” and “united” language this…


    The best thing anyone can do in such a violent world is refuse to UNITE with ANYTHING but their very own HEART.

    Often what we think of as our own heart is the doppelganger heart. A colesterol yellow sluge ball of a million preachy “lessons”. An arterial slurry of bickering and confusing “logic” that dams up our natural circulaton. The doppelganger heart is the dutiful self righteous heart. The thoughtful academic heart. The argy bargy heart. The look at me I am “right” heart.

    If your heart needs to be “right” it will look for some one else’s heart to be “wrong”. Even the stone cold dead heart of a newborn in a mass grave.

    If you want world peace do not unite. If you want world peace listen to your authentic heart. If you want world peace find your OWN peaceful way of happiness in honouring your OWN peaceful and loving and compassionate “free choices”. Snip the bindings of the “consensus opinion” that have you all caught up. Be no puppet on any puppet master’s string. To do that it may be necessary to let such imposter leaders call you “wrong” “wrong” “wrong”.

    Being “right” is not being “love”.

    Being “right” feels like love only in as much as it make you feel better to prove you are not “wrong”. Being told you are “wrong” is something you buy from believing in bullies who trade only in groupthink and “consensus opinion”, all spearheaded by those united puppet masters.

    A puppet master invariably gets exalted by kicking out a former puppet master, as if this is doing you a big favour. As if that big favour becomes THE SAME THING as your “freedom of choice”. Something you own by birthright already. Something no one can take away from you or give back to you. Emotional “freedom of choice” is your ancestral inherited indigenous land. All manner of leaders will measure it and stake it out and dig trenches all over it and bury its flowers and call it their real estate and tell you what to do with YOUR “freedom of choice”. They will argue that you cannot have “freedom of choice” until you prove you are “right” in the way their standards of strict moral decency or anarchism says you must be “right” or “correct”. And by this measure you become one of billions clamouring to yell that you are “correct” and everyone else is “wrong”.

    What a hell is made of a planet by making everything on it “wrong”.

    Following love is easy. Just follow what looks insane or illogical or stupid.

    Provided that your free choice is never abusive or exploitative or cruel to others then ALL your “free choices” are of peace and are utterly harmless, no matter who agrees or disagrees with them. It is ALL up to you. This is YOUR life. You are “free” to believe whatever you like.

    Tell everyone to leave you alone.

    Stop buying into the “right” “wrong” trap. Instead, insist everyone calls you “wrong” and be done with it and walk away. Go be the peace you are looking for.

    Be not “right”. Be not “right in the head”. Be mad. The path to freedom is in accepting accusations of stupidity.

    Even a newborn knows that.

  • Excuse my bag lady back of the hall arriving late stage entrance but I have been here before. I was in a terse mood. I am nice now.

    Fay I share your quibble about the censoring of words like mental illness. That is because I shiver at the censoring of any words.

    This week a woman held up a blank sheet of paper in a protest somewhere and got arrested. It seems that not only was she intimidated into not saying her own words but she was arrested for not chanting someone else’s.

    Throughout history people have thought that by binning any controversial inanimate books they will get rid of the way a bully had borrowed to oppress them. But sometimes it is the next raft of bullies who seize the opportunity of other people doing so just so those latest bullies can impose “control” over everyone’s freedom of choice to read any book they feel curious about and use any words they want to. This can make them seem like “controlling psychiatrists” telling the mad what they are not allowed to read. The DSM is naturally coming to the end of its preminence and authority, as ALL books do, even cook books and fishing books. It is great that Robert has shone a light on its metaphorical mildrew and bookworm. It belongs to a bygone era and so a refreshing change is welcome. But this “spirit of change” is quite different from bullies ordering people to not read this or that or use words they themselves feel comfortable using.

    We must all have “freedom of choice”. When someone’s choice is imposed on someone else that is what constitutes overt bullying. This is “why” the DSM has fallen into disrepute. It is bossy. As bossy as a caricature of a shrink. But I cannot help feeling concerned at the bossiness I have met with from people I have chatted with who sound to me like a “manual” on legs, about how I must think this way and not that way, or I must use this word and not that word. They seem in a hurry to fortress against an enemy. But often what happens during such appraisals of “us” and “them” is the need to “control” what the “them” do and even what the “us” do.

    I am not impressed with the attempt to shut down an old school former ediface of “control” if it means the imposition of yet more “control”.
    I do not feel free in “my choices” when I am met with an attitude that tries to shame me for expressing my illness in the way I want to. If I am not ENTIRELY free to use my own words to describe my own sense of my illness rather than a blank piece of paper then the offer of liberation through binning the DSM has a hollow ring to it. Oh, don’t mishear me. I am not a doormat who is keeping the DSM like some people wear a uniform long after they have retired. The book has no interest for me. I can barely recall what was in it. Quite frankly it is a bore. We face unimaginable catastrophic climate change and yet as a human species here we all are nitpicking and preaching lessons on what words are the good words and what words are the sin words. It is all the usual “control” to me. All of it.

    Where doth the need for “control” come from? Shall we turn to the DSM? Page five hundred and thirty nine…ah yes…it does not have any paragraph on “control”. Well “controllers” never do. And so it is with much in the world that passes as activism.

    People do not want to study “control” because where it comes from is enfeeblement. And when you study “enfeeblement” a lot of “fear” is found wrapped therein. Control is anger and anger is from “fear”.

    But fear is not love.

    Any paradigm that is riddled with fear, that comes to dethrone a former paradigm is perhaps doomed to repeat the past mistake of the former one by being every bit as controlling over peoples individual human right to choose whatever words they like.

    Changing paradigms is wholesome and fresh, new ideas for a new era. But done through fear and the controlling need to impose authority over choice there can be a lost opportunity to DO SOMETHING BEAUTIFUL.


    You cannot have equality if “your” freedom of choice comes at the cost of someone else’s freedom of choice.

    Humans often think the world needs saving by them specifically. But the world is not the round cuddly toy world that only you get to call home. In that sense there is not one world, there are many. Each world may overlap like in a venn diagram, as often causes friction and warzones. The periphery between each world is often a flash point where fear and the impulse to control takes over, and soon mass graves are full of those who seemingly made disapproved of free choices. The notion of fighting over “the one round blue world” is a disgusting incitement to obliterate the whole world with picky fighting over who makes the “correct” planet saving “free choices”. Anyone who does not make the “stipulated choices” or “imposed choices” is considered to be an enemy to “the one round blue world” and so must be persuaded to CHANGE, as if that single solitary ant sized human will be “saving the world” by being coerced to use different words. The world is vast. What does it matter what a cancer stricken old man says is making him ill? In this current time we see mass paranoia break out on the periphery abutting the many worlds, where ordinarily each world is free to do things their own sweet way and differently and use their own native tongue. In history time and time again a bewildered population has had to shush their own way of describing what their experiences and illness are in order to grovel at the boot heel of one regime or another. It is always always always done “for your own good”. Often the words that you are banned from using are the simple illogical unacademic words. Your words that take a pride in who “you” feel you are.

    I am schizophrenic and it is my mental illness and I am broken from it and because I survive it I am proud of it.

  • How about we live in a world where you are entirely free to heal your mental distress in whatever way you choose to…and I be free to heal my mental illness in whatever way I choose to.

    When we all live in a world where…

    Freedom of choice

    is respected no matter how much spectators may disagree with that individual choice then we live in a world


    What ALL forms of abuse are is the IMOPOSING of an unwelcome choice on the individual who prefers THEIR OWN FREE CHOICE.

    Your choice is regard your sense of illness as being caused by oppression from people.

    My choice is to regard my sense of illness as being caused by a bogeyman hallucination that I prefer to believe is coming from a dis-ease in me. Much like epilepsy causes seizures. So according to my choice it is not personal. It is not that people are personally oppressing me to that godforsaken extent. And even if people were oppressing me, I do not want to burden myself with that additional frightfulness on top of being a daily, hourly hallucinator.

    There is much talk of social injustice generally, which is commendable, but I think the truly broken seldom seek it. Why this is so is perhaps because when you have known actual torture for decades the very last thing you want is to waste any more of your life in fighting. You are instead yearning for your life to actually begin. And this is why time and time again, those schizophrenics and hostages and prisoners of war who know what it feels like to have a stolen life ONLY want to FORGIVE their wrongdoers and move on from tyranny and move into a state of grace not bitterness. They recognize that bitterness is what dulled the glazed look of the unforgiving who did heinous acts to them. Often the tortured are enriched by this REVELATION. And because the tortured see clearly that bitterness is at the centre of world oppression then bitterness and its cousin of cynicism is NOT what the beaten and broken want dominating what is left of their miserable lives. What the actually tortured really want is for everyone to live in peace and harmony again. But this is ironically what makes the genuinely tortured more dangerous to listen to. The heart and soul of FORGIVENESS is dangerous to those seeking the type of justice that is really just bitter vengeance.

    But if you are feeling a sense of injustice you are almost certainly about to commit an injustice.

  • How about we live in a world where you are entirely free to heal your mental distress in whatever way you choose to…and I be free to heal my mental illness in whatever way I choose to.

    When we all live in a world where…

    Freedom of choice

    is respected no matter how much spectators may disagree with that individual choice then we live in a world


    What ALL forms of abuse are is the IMOPOSING of an unwelcome choice on the individual who prefers THEIR OWN FREE CHOICE.

    Your choice is regard your sense of illness as being caused by oppression from people.

    My choice is to regard my sense of illness as being caused by a bogeyman hallucination that I prefer to believe is coming from a dis-ease in me. Much like epilepsy causes seizures. So according to my choice it is not personal. It is not that people are personally oppressing me to that godforsaken extent. And even if people were oppressing me, I do not want to burden myself with that additional frightfulness on top of being a daily, hourly hallucinator.

    There is much talk of social injustice generally, which is commendable, but I think the truly broken seldom seek it. Why this is so is perhaps because when you have known actual torture for decades the very last thing you want is to waste any more of your life in fighting. You are instead yearning for your life to actually begin. And this is why time and time again, those schizophrenics and hostages and prisoners of war who know what it feels like to have a stolen life ONLY want to FORGIVE their wrongdoers and move on from tyranny and move into a state of grace not bitterness. They recognize that bitterness is what dulled the glazed look of the unforgiving who did heinous acts to them. Often the tortured are enriched by this REVELATION. And because the tortured see clearly that bitterness is at the centre of world oppression then bitterness and its cousin of cynicism is NOT what the beaten and broken want dominating what is left of their miserable lives. What the actually tortured really want is for everyone to live in peace and harmony again. But this is ironically what makes the genuinely tortured more dangerous to listen to. The heart and soul of FORGIVENESS is dangerous to those seeking the type of justice that is really just bitter vengeance.

    But if you are feeling a sense of injustice you are almost certainly about to commit an injustice.

  • I definitely have a mental illness. It is caused by my brain chemicals. It is not a debate. My BASIC HUMAN RIGHT, as written in THE DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS categorically states that I have a right to HOLD MY OWN OPINION.

  • Bradford, my unease over the casual daily use of the word genocide is it sometimes comes from eugenic fear of being wiped out by the “different”. What I mean is that it can be used as a totalitarian accusation to legitmate vengeance not justice.

    I am yet to meet a psychiatrist or psychologist who was not a caring individual.

  • Friend, I feel you misconstrued my line about how just joining a choir will not get rid of temptation.

    My angels are telling me to “pack it in!”.

    What they mean is we are entering a global phase where absolutely everyone is fighting fighting fighting with absolutely everyone else. It is ENDLESS all the BICKERING.

    But maybe I will stop listening to my angels for a moment.

    Self righteousness feels lovely.
    It heals terrifically.
    But in order to feel self righteous and get that delicious perk of elevation a person has to define a self wrongfulness and indentify who is wrong wrong wrong.
    Healing feels like love and so finding it via self righteousness makes being self righteous seem like a lovely mending and wholesome way to be. It is a bit like espousing strict moral decency. All the person needs to regard their way of being as “correct”. And this “correctness” seems “healing”.

    But it is not love.

    True love is the absence of “right” or “wrong”.

    Here in the comments section a person wants to be self righteous and healing themselves by calling those who like psychiatry the self wrongful others.

    But at the same time another person may want to be self righteous and healing themselves by calling those who loathe psychiatry as self wrongful.

    Neither person is loving the different. This is due the awful predicament and misconception that IF self love is ONLY predicated on being proven “right” then then there has to be someone identified as “wrong” for the love to happen at all.

    But authentic…


    Nobody is “wrong”.

    Love is a “feeling”. It is not a “judgement” of “rightness” or “wrongness” based on “thinking”, thinking such as comes from something like a totalitarian regime.

    There ARE wrong BEHAVIOURS such as murder and so on. These need stopped. But behavious are not feelings. Behaviours come from thinking. Good behaviour. Bad behaviour. Acts.

    But actions are not the feeling of love. Actions are actions. Actions may be critiqued as “right” or “wrong”, but feelings just ARE.

    I do not need you to be “wrong” to make me find my way of being loveable and lovely for me.

    And I do not need to bend you to my will and make you “right” according to my ideology or beliefs.

    You are FREE to be YOU.

    And I am FREE to be ME.

    And that FEELs like authentic LOVE.

  • Friend, I feel you misconstrued my line about how just joining a choir will not get rid of temptation.

    My angels are telling me to “pack it in!”.

    What they mean is we are entering a global phase where absolutely everyone is fighting fighting fighting with absolutely everyone else. It is ENDLESS all the BICKERING.

    But maybe I will stop listening to my angels for a moment.

    Self righteousness feels lovely.
    It heals terrifically.
    But in order to feel self righteous and get that delicious perk of elevation a person has to define a self wrongfulness and indentify who is wrong wrong wrong.
    Healing feels like love and so finding it via self righteousness makes being self righteous seem like a lovely mending and wholesome way to be. It is a bit like espousing strict moral decency. All the person needs to regard their way of being as “correct”. And this “correctness” seems “healing”.

    But it is not love.

    True love is the absence of “right” or “wrong”.

    Here in the comments section a person wants to be self righteous and healing themselves by calling those who like psychiatry the self wrongful others.

    But at the same time another person may want to be self righteous and healing themselves by calling those who loathe psychiatry as self wrongful.

    Neither person is loving the different. This is due the awful predicament and misconception that IF self love is ONLY predicated on being proven “right” then then there has to be someone identified as “wrong” for the love to happen at all.

    But authentic…


    Nobody is “wrong”.

    Love is a “feeling”. It is not a “judgement” of “rightness” or “wrongness” based on “thinking”, thinking such as comes from something like a totalitarian regime.

    There ARE wrong BEHAVIOURS such as murder and so on. These need stopped. But behavious are not feelings. Behaviours come from thinking. Good behaviour. Bad behaviour. Acts.

    But actions are not the feeling of love. Actions are actions. Actions may be critiqued as “right” or “wrong”, but feelings just ARE.

    I do not need you to be “wrong” to make me find my way of being loveable and lovely for me.

    And I do not need to bend you to my will and make you “right” according to my ideology or beliefs.

    You are FREE to be YOU.

    And I am FREE to be ME.

    And that FEELs like authentic LOVE.

  • ….

    Was that a bit “cross”?

    I am allowed to be aggrieved. On the one hand I long for my ideas to be tinctures for everyone. Poems, art, notions, are medicines.

    But I am too unevolved to not hurt when N O B O D Y acknowledges the inventiveness cometh from a schizophrenic mad woman. An EMBARRASSMENT all over again.

    It often irks me that podcasts seem to lionize the corporate and not the raggamuffin commenters.

    Such dignified coughing up cuffs smacks of…


  • Call me paranoid but I believe it was I who illuminated the glaring difference between feelings and thoughts. It is often the gifted schizophrenic who has their finger on the zeitgheist pulse. But it is often the schizophrenic who is treated like a ragamuffin filthy so and so who “lacks academic credentials” to further gems of ideas. Much art and poetry has been stolen from women by “great men” in history. The same can be said of the creative art and excellent ideas stolen from indigenous cultures by “the academic greats”. Experts one and all.

    And here is comes again. The theft of schizophrenic ideas.

    “Don’t worry madam, don’t worry your pretty little mind over that canvas or journal of poems or that whatever it is you have tucked at your shabby breastbone…here…let US take care your property for you…for your own good…lest it gets damaged”.

    My angels are LAUGHING.

    They are LAUGHING.

    All the schizophrenic can do is LAUGH.

    Take it ALL.

    Take ALL of me.


    This is MY BODY of work.

  • My angels tell me everything is a mirage.

    We are all having a shared dream in which our behavours can manifest as nightmares to others. But that only occurs to degree we get swallowed up into believing the dream of reality is…real.

    A person may not kiss their girlfriend if they think she is part of “a dream”.

    But equally a person may not harm her if she is like mist that can harm nobody merely by “being”.

    When you embrace the notion of everthing being a mirage you allow what IS to be entertaining.

    Crimes occur because people take everything too seriously.

    I found this video a close contender to what you appear to like.

    Always exciting to encounter a wise “knower” such as yourself.

    I shall put the link separately.

  • Respectfully Sir,

    You seem to be confusing an individual’s truthfully saying that they are “feeling ill” with the “societal response” to the individual saying that they are honestly “feeling ill”.

    These are two completely separate dilemmas.

    Societal response.
    Individual saying they feel ill.

    What can obscure this is the way in which the “societal response”, if harsh, can “make” an individual differently ill. And an added aspect can be the societal response of propagandizing of people into their believing they are the problem because they are crazy.

    What I am outlining is TWO narratives of the experience of unwellness. One “caused” presumably by “society” and its “consensus opinion”, but the other being “just illness”.

    It IS possible for an individual to say they are feeling ill and EXPECT to be CARED ABOUT.

    If a new vision for the world does not include the individual who says they are “feeling ill” then it is a world where nobody is allowed to “not like” what is going on.

    Sir, it is honourable to envisage a world where “society” regards people in the way that people wish to be regarded. But “people” are not a conglemerate lump of indentical persons all following the latest “consensus opinion” that outsmarts the previous rotten “consensus opinion”.

    To me, what the word “people” means is a gathering of “the diverse and different”. Which means some individuals may be old or young or dreamy or ambitious or traumatized or even ACTUALLY be feeling ill for a variety of dubious or genuine AUTHENTIC reasons.

    Sir, I commend your dedication to a world where society treats people more caringly.

    But this is the key sticking point on this passion. For one cannot be advancing “caring for ALL” if…


    Which means there must be also be a respecting that those individuals who say they are “feeling ill” truthfully mean what they are saying.

    When the voice hearing AUTHENTICALLY “feeling ill” become AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH there grows a replication of the asylum.

  • You poor man. I am appalled at the way you were treated.

    I guess the eugenics thing rumbles on all over the world. Christianity used to do paintings of saints with caucasian features and aquiline noses to show what they scandalously considered to be the ideal mimics of Christ. So I tend not to think medicine was the only place to get mixed up in eugenics. People are still Christain today. Many love being so. So the damning history of an ideology need not mean everyone has to cease wanting what it “should have been” and “should be”. But I understand that if a person loathes an ideology because it has been loathesome to them then they will not want it. I have no great desire to see psychiatry preserved or abolished. I have moved on from finding it relevant. But what I do maintain is that my illness of schizophrenia is very real to me. And I do not think people here with experience of DID will like the idea that they are possibly too inept to realise there is no illness or suffering of that nature being experienced by them at all. People know what their illness is.

    The ill have a right to be ill.

    Any illness may be called by other names in other languages. Does that really matter? It changes nothing about the symptoms to change the name “measles” to “spotty rash”.

    I will still be schizophrenic tomorrow and tomorrows tomorrow and tomorrows tomorrows tomorrow, no matter what someone tells me to call it.

    But I fully appreciate there has been gross medical negligence in your case, and in the case if millions.

  • I know a psychiatrist who is so keen to come the healer that he has jumped ships from psychiatry into antipsychiatry to continue to feel good about himself. The need to feel good about oneself is achingly understandable but it may come from absorbing “consenus opinion” that preaches a need to feel “bad” about oneself. There is only one time anyone should feel bad about themselves and that is if they are actively and deliberately and willfully bullying the free choices of another human being. You can argue that they must be if they are ensconced in a regime. This has a grain of truth. But very often those lured into a regime do not know that is where their need to “feel good” about themselves has driven them into. They think they are being “the healer”. And if they are told to “change” and adopt new beliefs they may simply import their need to “feel good” about themselves on board that new ship. They have not really considered “why” they are succeptible to “feeling bad” about themselves. Who has taught them that about their harmless free choices? A people pleaser is a person apt to want to be obedient to the idea of decency since through society’s idea of decency is the possibility of being recognized as “a good person” or “a saint”.

    Decency causes abuse.

    So the very thing that draws a person who feels bad about themselves into medicine to feel all good about themselves can betray a wound rather than a healing. And that needy wound can travel to any new institution or regime or church or cult.

    Decency causes abuse when it becomes no longer a “feeling” of compassion and morphs into the robotic obedience to totalitarian “rules” that are advertized as the latest hotch potch of decency. In time the travelling psychiatrist, longing to feel good about themselves, and jumping onto a new ship or paradigm, imports a succeptibility to “people please” enough to unquestioning endorse and follow new “rules” AS IF the “rules” alone are decency or compassion.

    Rules are decisions. Decisions are thoughts. Rules are not “feelings”.

    A mother does not swaddle her baby in “rules” to be decent to it. A mother is a being of emotional feeling and it is this that generates care and compassion. No thoughts or rules are needed for “healing love”. No squeaky impeccable buying into the “right paradigm” with the “right rules” is needed to…

    BE LOVE.

    The Christain priesthood was chock full of the “decent”. Many of whom were anxious to “people please”, enough to win approval from “consensus opinion” RULES. Look where that kind of decency and “feeling good” about themselves ended up in. It wasn’t always the narthex or pulpit.

    But the problem with following “consenus opinion” rules is that a person is apt to no longer be following their own unique intuitive gut feelings.

    Rules are NOT gut feelings.

    I envisage that many psychiatrists will leave the truly ill in the lurch, abandonning genuinely schizophrenic individuals, because “consensus opinion” is beginning to make caring compassionately for them no longer a “feel good” thing that could heal a psychiatrist of their fashionable “consensus opinion” that looking after those sick and suffering has become the latest “feel bad”.

    Healing the sick is not about “the healer”.

    I am no apostle for psychiatry. Most of psychiatry in its current form stinks. I just take a dim view of anyone who dumps the “ill” because it no longer makes them “feel good”.

  • I just want to say that if you can think of our own physical aparatus as being like a laptop that receives or channels a talkshow or documentary on meditation you can explore the notion that the brain/laptop receives messages/consciousness/spirit.

    A person may have a brain or laptop that has the equivallent of dementia, so its a brain/laptop that is running down in that person’s aging process and so it may or may not be patchy in what it receives.

    The physical properties of any laptop does not mean it cannot channel or receive. Sometimes an older piece of tech is simpler and better.

    But the brain/laptop is only a bit of hardware. It is not the ineffable substance of received consciousness. Any more than a television is the talkshow. The talkshow is independant of the kit.
    A completely broken television set is in a persistent vegetative state, possibly from brain damaging iatrogenic harm from medication. So it matters that we look after our matter, for the sake of our psyche or consciousness, even though our consciousness may not reside inside the circuits or meat of the matter. The brain is a good gadget and we need it work well. That “working well” notion has been problematic since it has legitimated certain humans to fuss with that which should not be badly treated at all. Nevertheless some brains/laptops have difficulties like epilepsy and brain tumours and detox withdrawal states and hormonal fluxations and even trauma can affect the poor old brain/laptop. There is an understandable wish, after the debacle of bad treatment, to just say leave the brain/laptop alone. Stop trying to meddle in it. Stop trying to “fix” it.

    But given that the body clearly goes awry in some circumstances, in hormonal conditions for instance, and given that the brain IS the body, I think it is impulsive to regard the brain/laptop as always free from suffering from the owner of said brain.

    I am not advocating for tinkering with that noble organ at all. It is way too finicky and delicate and special and precious. Any prodding constitutes “bad treatment” of it, in my opinion. Gentle herbalism is as far as I would go with the brain.

    I think all uniqueness should be CELEBRATED and not regarded as problematic. I am no fan of genetics. It sounds too creepily like the study of the hardware of the laptop and seems devoid of any consideration of the unique consciousness or psyche or spirit that uses that brain/laptop as a communicatio n gadget.

    I believe a lot of what people want here is the CELEBRATION of unique consciousness. And not labelling unique consciousness as anomalous.

    That is all to the good.



    So what if you meet a unique consciousness who expresses that they feel suicidal because their brain/laptop has begun having seizures?

    Whilst you debunk theories that are not conducive to the way you CELEBRATE your unique choices, do you CELEBRATE “their” uniqueness by allowing “their” “freedom of choice” to be a consciousness that prefers to believe epilepsy is a real thing?

    Yes, an onlooker may not want an individual to believe what they believe. Their belief may challenge the onlooker, though it need not.

    Difference is NOT challenge.

    An orchid does NOT challenge the preference of the rose.

    But an onlooker might then even harbour a wish to bully the individual into a new evangelized belief. As happened in early psychiatry.

    People are bullied into “changing” because of “fear” of their “difference”.

    A person may be misdiagnosed as schizophrenic as a way to “change” them, out of “fear” of their “difference”.

    Equally a person may be told they should stop knowing they suffer from schizophrenia as a way to “change” them, out of “fear” of their “difference”.

    Mostly “difference” is harmless and joyful and part of the freedom found in uniqueness. When you make “difference” dangerous, that is the biggest danger of all. It means you are intimidated for being “different” and are no longer free to choose “not to change”. You are ordered to be having your brain/laptop overhauled or painfully and recklessly turned into a new model by medication, or you are told that if you want to keep it as your own brain/laptop and not “change” it, then somehow you are responsible for the way humanity is disappointing or bullying. Added to this you are not allowed to diagnose your own brain/laptop, or rid it of someone else’s diagnosis of it, or even gladly choose to utilize someone else’s diagnosis of it.

    It is your own laptop yet you are constantly taught “lessons” about it from “experts” and “academics” or “activists” about how you…




    Often this is done under the latest consensus opinion of what constitutes “normal”. The debate about “normal” will always rage on. It fails to allow you to INVENT YOUR OWN NORMAL.

    For person A being offered a diagnosis may not feel normal to them.

    For person B being offered a diagnosis may help them make more sense of THEIR OWN frightening illness of epilepsy or bewildering hallucinations.

    Their belief about what is NORMAL or not, for THEIR own laptop, should have no bearing on what someone else decides is NORMAL or not, for their own laptop.

    When people attack each others beliefs as if merely believing something is dangerous then freedom of choice becomes dangerous. That’s not a world any laptop wants to light up in.

    That world is already here.

    I must go. I have other things in my existence that I need to get on with. But I leave with a brief mention of this quirky daft video. I am not sure what I make of it. It seems a tossed salad of interesting nibbles. But I like the idea of uniquely “different” humans making up a diverse humanity that are all to be loved, cherished and CELEBRATED.

  • Hmmm.

    Psychiatric medication makes me “feel” suicidal.

    As do certain ideologies.

    As do certain people in society.

    I do not like that “feeling”.

    I do not want that “feeling”.

    When I “feel” that bad I call it “feeling ill”. It is different from the way my schizophrenia makes me feel ill and suicidal on an hourly basis.

    When I “feel ill” in that mentally specific way I feel it in my mind not my scapula or metatarsal.

    My mind. My mental realm. I am not ashamed of having “a mind”. It is not a filthy appendage to be hidden. It is to be CELEBRATED as part of my OWN UNIQUE INDIVIDUALITY.

  • Great work. I want to listen again.

    But I am too vexed about the HOOVER DAM. I know something is going to compromise it. Its significance will become clear. My schizophrenia gives me prophecies. Pharmaceuticals hushed all my talents in that regard. Now I am off pills I can see my visions of the future just as I was right about the pandemic and the war in Russia. Nobody listens to me because I am schizophrenic. They all assume my prophecies come from the bit of my mind that is mad.

    Jupiter and the flood. Evacuate the east coastline.

  • I have been floating around Spiritualist healers for two decades. I have met many. I have knowledge of how most healers of that natural tradional variety tend to ALSO heal psychiatric or mental conditions. They plunk the client in a chair as if about to lobotomize them and proceed to waft their hands over the clients crown chakra. We need not be so shy of having a crown chakra to which things can seemingly go wrong. Call it psychiatry. Call it crown chakra. Call it kundilini snakes. Call it any paper and ink words you fancy. It is what it is. It always shall be. Which is why bearskin wearing preverbal cave dwellers were at pains to trepan the odd spot of problematic melancholy. And in a thousand years people will still be needing healed of their space age melancholy, their futuristic very very long covid blues. The attempt to get rid of psychiatry is not going to get rid of the melancholy that brought about psychiatry, any more than joining an evangelical choir will get rid of temptation.

  • L.e. Cox,

    I have been way too quick to respond to some things you said to me that upon reflection “do” make sense to me. I now understand more what you mean by the term “game”.

    To me life is “a mirage”. I think there are parallels in our mutual philosophical findings. A game is an unreal thing that feels passionately real. Ditto a mirage. I apologize if I upset you. I think the comments section is not able to allow for greater depth of understanding. Plus it can be a log jamb of feistiness since every comment made will be bookended by detractors. It is a chaotic and unnatural way to delve into “the deeps”. People need space to ponder whether what they say still feels heartfelt to them. And there can be a pressure to sound absolutely certain. And in a rush many precious notions that are dear to your heart can get scattered like bread upon the waters. Ending up disappointingly feeding nobody.

    I will leave it at that. I need to do lots of leavings at present.

    Always good to be leaving.

    Vastly superior to arriving.

  • I am very impressed with your response to me. You and Sam Ruck are ambassadors of compassion.

    I have been immersed in art books for the past five hours and the convolution of my brain that wrote my comment is a complete stranger to me now. What was I saying anyway?

    I shall be honest and say I am not upset about the DSM palmistry book. There is ALWAYS going to be a book. If there are people to oppress there will always be a book of handy “logic” to turn to to excuse it. But a book is not a bully. A book is used by a bully. The problem as I see it is not that illnesses or characteristics are described…Wuthering Heights has many descriptive words of its craven characters. Descriptions are all around in human nitpicking civilizations. But it is when any book is taken seriously by a bullying regime that things gets murky. The DSM has words like Bipolar and Schizophrenia but most of the people I know who know those words are not bullies.
    It takes something “extra” beyond the physical inanimate object of a book to go to town on persecuting someone. To fail to make that distinction means the “sickness” at the centre of bullying is seldom studied. Instead time is wasted on shredding or burning a mere book with bland words in it. How is that going to help to solve the riddle of bullying? It is a riddle that really needs great care taken in the examination of “why” other people who also read the book and its apparently damning words do not bully anyone at all. Think of the bible during the inquisition. Many good people read the DSM and do not rush out into the streets and try to catch the one in a hundred who has the misfortune to hear voices. Plenty do of course find themselves despicably treated by bullies who “use” the book that is the DSM to oppress. But it seems naive to me for people to have wishful thinking that merely by clearing the book shelves of that book that bullies will not simply jump ship onto the next book, and the next, and the next. And the same may be said for words. By shredding the rather inanimate objects that are certain words is there hope that bullying will no more set foot on the world? Won’t bullies just pick up a new book on how everyone should oppress someone who does not “talk proper” or use the “correct” new language?

    The DSM is full of three things. One is descriptions of how “ill” sufferers themselves say they feel. I see nothing wrong with that. If people “feel” ill and say so then who is to doubt it. It is like testimony in church. The second aspect in the book is that of “observing” the illnesses. Observing anything in life can be done with compassion, as when an ecologist observes how many geese are migrating and are landing in a lake that year. But an oppressor can do observations that are creepy and calculating. The observing is a neutral act but the meaning and purpose motivating it can be warm and caring or devious and chilling. The attempt to get rid of any book that has been borrowed by oppressors can get confused with a wish to stop all forms of hearing the accounts of the “suffering” and can also be a wish to stop the free and neutral act of “observing” life. As if merely observing a skein of geese passing in the sky is indicative of being uncaring. The third thing the DSM does is advise on prognosis and treatment. A bit like how the bible advises on afflictions of a spiritual sort. This area, prognosis and treatment, is a welcome mat to any oppressor. It is folly to think it would not be a risk. But to believe that in getting rid of mere paper and ink advice there will be an end to bullying is again naive. If paper and ink were so goddam powerful the millions of peace advancing books would have caused heaven on Earth.

    The bullying is way beyond any book. To lose track of that allows bullies in the back door of new pristine paradigms, whose shiny bestseller books will doubtless also be used by oppressors, to add layer upon layer to originally straightforward plans of how “treat” people of their suffering.

    My guess is history will repeat itself endlessly so, over another tide of tiumphant book pulping. Until people realise that the cure for oppression is to put love into the sickness that causes a bully to be a bully.

    No newborn is born an oppressor.

  • And those adults who don’t, such as pedophiles and narcotic dealers and other manipulators can have enhanced access to the children who have no contact with their adult parents.

    A million boysoldiers are desperate for brave adults to come and love them enough to save them from recuiters. The adult parents are too scared to do so.

    Alice Miller lived in a gilded cage called Europe. A temporary state that is already crumbling into rack and ruin. What is coming next is going to see everyone long for everyone to behave like grown ups.

    A little over a decade ago a woman had her throat cut by a boysoldier whilst she was breastfeeding a baby. Was that adult woman harming anyone? Was she?

    A community is formed of ALL AGES.

    Even a zoo knows that.

    To prefer one age group over another is like preferring kernels over glorious mature trees.

    It is unnatural to hate any age group.

    Who are going to be babysitting the unwanted offspring of the young if not the grandmothers and grandfathers?

    Strict communism was never AGEIST.

    It would promote the vision that…


    But in this era there is a rush to slam a door on evil. But if one does not open a door to LOVE of ALL BEINGS then one merely opens a door to a recalibration of the same evil.

    The trouble is that those wounded by evil mistrust LOVE as if IT is the evil to which a door needs slammed.

    This is the Dark Path humanity is hurrying down. Those who have the wisdom to question why LOVE is needing rejected have the light of love within them.

    None shall listen to them.

    With this I wish you all best of luck and I sadly bid adieu.

  • I hope you have written a book about this. Sam, it sounds enthralling.

    I had a boyfriend who upon showing me around his house told me not to look in a filing cabinet. I could go everywhere else.
    One day the inevitable happened. I looked.

    In the cabinet were sections. In each section were love letters from various assorted women.

    I was shocked but after it all simmered down I joked that he was like Bluebeard. With a woman behind every door.

    I grew used to seeing him as having a bit of a hareem. That he devotedly loved all of his women was authentic. He want it all. The whole collection. The whole cake. There is a toff in England who is a baron or lord of a stately home and he has what he calls “wifelets”. Lord Bath? He paints dedicated portraits to each of his “wifelets” and amasses the paintings as a gallery of votive loyalty to the Divine Feminine. All the “wifelets” want for nothing and seem perfectly happy with the hareem. He is like a peacock strutting across the lawn to his coterie of peahens.

    You are married to many. I like that about you. You say “wife” but you mean “many” in that. I think your beautiful acceptance of the “many-ness” that can emerge from one person is the way we ought to all be to EACH OTHER.

    We all are made of broken selves and powerful selves. No one person is complete and “fixed”.

    I love the quote you gave.

    I am to bow out of the comments sections. But I am with you in spirit, my friend.

    I am

  • I am leaving the comments section so I do not want to start up a new thread but I just wanted to say that I find it odd that there is a notion that if a person has any disability they cannot critique the world. You seem to imply that you were landeed a diagnosis almost to stop you finding fault with the world. My friend with the disability of epilepsy does critique the world. Even more than most, such is the quirky blessing in any form of abject suffering. It clarifies the mind about social injustice.

    But again there seems to be a confusion generally about a diagnosis always being the injustice. I feel for me that is just not true. I have a diagnosis and it does not “have to” come with stigma if I choose to educate people not to. See leprousy. See HIV. See syphillus.

    What your article is is a lovely story of recovery Karin. So I am not saying these things “to you”. I am merely going with tangents brought up in reaponse to what you made me aware of.

    Too many are wrongly diagnosed of bipolar. And other conditions. That needs to stop. Radically so.

    One in a hundred have schizophrenia, or thereabouts. That is a vast population globally. I would have thought that if all those people were not ill at all that scchizophrenia would no longer exist. Everyone would have already protested like ten years ago and it would have ceased. The fact there are still many people who claim to feel ill in that utterly miserable way says something to me.

    Anyway I just wanted to say I am happy with my own schizophrenia diagnosis as no psychiatrist ever bullied me into having it. All my psychiatrists ever wanted for me was for me to lead a normal life. None of them ever focused me on my illness. It “is” an illness to me since I feel “ill” all day every, day with it, for decades. It is not caused by trauma. It is not caused by propaganda from “the world” as far as I can deduce. The world has more than enough to deal with, what with needing to be feeding starving babies in Somalia than bothering about personally stigmatizing little ol me. Much as my ego would like to think the world “sees” me. I think that would be paranoia or wishful thinking on my part. An over inflation of my significance is often brought about by feeling meaningless. But I believe much of life is meaningless. I think it is meant to be weirdly so in that way.

    Obviously things have been drastically different for you. I am glad you got out of your wrong diagnosis. I respect that your experiences are “your experiences” and my experiences are “my experiences” and I do not think we need “fear” the “difference”. Because if we start to fear the “difference” of each others “experience” it is a short step away from us all “fearing the differ-ent”, and that nightmare, so often in the ambitions of king makers and puppet masters and political pundits, leads to the gas chamber.

    Instead we ought to CELEBRATE the DIFFERENT.

    Ah, but that means giving up celebrating the arguement, the arguement, the arguement, the arguement, the arguement, the arguement…

    In this era “The Arguement” is “God”.

    Not LOVE.

  • Joshua I like that you want your world to be different from mine. So I am not arguing that your idea is not a winner. It may well be. But to me I prefer having parents. I know it is not for everyone but for me it is a value I seem to need for my wellbeing.

    Here is a link to a video that shows how “metal” elders are and how when we lose their lore we progress but we also may lose all the romance in life.

    These elders are away with the fairies. They are guardians of psychotically creative ways of viewing the world. They are a counter point to Big Pharma.

    A brain shrinking blister pack of SSRIs can be replaced by butter on a door handle.

    To me the family is a quasi tribe.
    The tribe, or group huddle, has been in situ since humans took shelter in caves to rear their young. The tribe is natural and healthy as far as I can make out. Ditto the extended community that springs from gatherings of tribes. Elders have always been respected in indigenous tribes. As are children. A good blend of ages is holistic for any family/tribe.

    In psychotherapy it is rare that a therapists asks you what your parents gave you that was good.

    For instance my mother gave me a love of art and poetry. My father gave me a love of music and both of them gave me a love of nature. My mother gave me the superstitious. My father gave me the supernatural. My mother taught me to sew. My father taught me to fish. The list is endless of the treasures that both my parent generously gave me. Were those “damaging”?

    Why does everyone want to locate “the damaging” in parents? I believe it is because people have been taught to mistrust simple love. It is a mass social contageon of paranoia about the authentic goodness of ordinary love. The paranoia in society is so unnerving that there is an automatic reflex to find the deceit in love before that deceit finds you. It is a habit that is schooled into society ironically by the success story of psychotherapy’s digging and rootling around in people’s good enough childhoods, it is a reflex attitude in response to older people of…

    “you don’t fool me”.

    We now live in an era where a child who is not looked after by a family/tribe runs the traumatizing risk of getting swallowed up in narcotic addiction or sexually abused by other older children or marshalled into gangs or prepped for any kind of soldierhood and so on.

    You can say bad parents make lost children. But you can also say good parents find lost children.

    I read Alice Miller only because my parents gave me their flare for reading. As far as I recall I slid out of the womb unable to utter the alphabet. My parents gave me the intelligence to read such a parent thumping book. Like a boxing coach gives his trainee a proper set of boxing gloves to knock him into next week. Alice Millar’s book was to me a door I could noisily slam in the face of my parents’ failure to make the cruel world love me.
    It was never that my parents traumatized me. It was that they stood idly by while the world did that.

    But “because” it was the world doing that and not them is the very reason I adore them.

    My therapist wanted me to go no contact with the mother who made me. Had I done so I would not have had two decades of precious and funny and wonderful memories with my aged Hippie of a mother. My father once asked her to go up town in the city and buy him some breakfast. She was away for hours. When she came home she had spent all the money but brought back no food. Instead she had emerged bearing two African spears.

  • Sam, If you wonder where your comment went I ran off with it like fox trailing a tattered banquet of carion. Devoured now. Your compliments were delicious! Thank you.

    You are a the heart and soul of kindness.

    Life is hard. Bitter people fight. I believe you have no bitterness. I do not know where on Earth you squirrel it away. Sprinkle some on my carion to season it or I may have to call you the living personifcation of a peaceful guru.

    All said with affection and deep appreciation. You seem to me to be one of life’s egoless givers.

    Alice Miller is interesting. She definitely has lifted millions out of a mire where they thought everything was…

    “all my fault”.

    She helped to mend people of that woundedness.

    That miraculous healing was in part due to allowing adults to regress back to being liberated. To a time of ideal childhood. The way the child should have been loved.

    But actually just being a child again is such a massive joy to anyone regardless of whether they had a rough childhood or not. So that invite to engage with life in a more playful and feeling focused way is always going to be helpful.

    Soon everyone said how much this mended them.

    But a regime, any regime, in any epoch, will utilize the props in any culture that have healing appeal in them. Thus certain past regimes utilized local folklore and repackaged it as part of “the answer” that the regime began espousing.

    The myth of the “fixed” person has always been used by regimes as part of its offer. Join us and be transformed from broken to “fixed”. When a person is getting nowhere with being themselves and is fed up feeling broken the mere illusion of being “fixed” seems powerfully lifesavingly attractive. And so the regime seems attractive. And when it draws on props that also reveal transformations, as in folklore, from boring life to enhanced life, it all seems irresistable.

    Psychotherapy is that folklore prop that is going to be used by all manner of new regimes to promote the myth of the perpetually “fixed” person.

    But to be a “fixed” person may imply that someone damaged or broke what now needs “fixed”. Regimes like to point a finger of blame at who caused that.

    Enter the myth of the perpetually “fixed” mother, or father.

    And enter the myth of the perpetually “wrecking” mother, or father.

    An unreal ideal of “fixed” parent is being promoted as villains who are to blame for each individual not being a perpetually “fixed” regime puppet on a string.

    Any healthy “community” is a “realistic” not “idealistic” community. For a start it has a natural blend of all age groups, with a tolerance in all age groups for how each age brings with it dramatically different perspectives as blessings. You are not the same person you are as a nine year old, or fifteen year old, or fifty year old, or ninety year old. You bring different blessings to a community from your different ages. A parent is not meant to be a nine year old, or a fifteen year old. But a regime will promote the notion that the world will only be a better place when all Earth’s inhabitants ONLY think like a fifteen year old, or ONLY think like a fifty year old. Whatever consitutes the latest model of the myth of the perpetually “fixed” person that they are hellbent on selling.

    Allied to that myth of “fixedness” comes the myth of perfect love.

    We do not talk about perfect sadness. We do not talk about perfect anger.

    Perfecting a “feeling” is the fastest way to kill it. Perfecting turns the “feeling” into a thought.

    Feelings are not meant to be thoughts.

    Love is not meant to be perfect. Indeed its very imperfection is what makes love so well…loveable.

    Yet here we find ourselves, tugged on a leash to be obedient to a demand to be perperually “fixed” love bestowers…to create impossibly perpetually “fixed” people.

    A person cannot demand love without crushing the delicate nuanced phenomenon that love is.

    I am concerned at the way psychotherapy is getting its props stolen by regimes who are only in the business of blame. In whose interest is it that there grows a gulf between ninety year olds and nine year olds in our communities?

    Boy soldiers phone their mother’s and father’s from warzones begging to…

    “come home”.

  • How do you know an emotion is blunt?

    How do you know that you have had your fill of pleasure until it tips over into being just a bit stuffed, which is no longer pleasure?

    You can only know optimum joy when it is on the verge of collapsing back into the sweetness of sorrow.

    I am not being disagreeing about the damage that medications are. I am off on a butterfly hunt, a tangent over why we think our emotions should be not blunt but long and pointy.

    Is an emotion measurable like a three hundred centimetre length of pine wood stick? So that when we see it is reduced to a size of a pencil you know something is amiss?

    If I see a turquoise blanket and maybe it induces a length of emotion. Perhaps this in turn “feels right” that the turquoise blanket did so. Perhaps because everyone else claims to have a similar emotional length to a ubiquitous turquoise blanket. Next time I see the turquoise blanket I anticipate that it “should” produce the same emotional length in me as it does to everyone. But when upon seeing the turquoise blanket it turns out to only be a short stick length of emotion in me or a bluntness, I may think there is something “wrong” with the turquoise blanket. Or I may think there is something “wrong” with me, given that everyone has a long long emotion that azure wonder.

    The word “should” starts to bully me. I am not sure who put it in my head. Who foisted it onto the length or shortness of my each and every emotion?

    I “should” feel very long sad.
    I “should” feel very long joy.
    I “should” feel very long anger.

    If I feel none of those, or only short lengths of those, does it make me a mad individual?

    Should I push the short emotion to be long, push it and push it, to be like everyone else.

    But that would make the emotion not a feeling but a “doing thing”.

    That would “blunt” the emotion, if it could not be a “feeling”.

  • Aha!
    Monseuir McRea has flipped my Dutch cutlass out of my fencing grip…

    But I see I have a penknife in my sock.

    Sigh…genetics. A personality cannot get very far without the physical manifestation of genetics to plump its cushions, by creating things like hair to fluff, bone to do dancing, teeth to smile radiently, timbre of voice to talk sweet nothings. Without genetics the personality won’t get very far in THIS dimension. I say THIS because I believe there are other dimensions that the personality can move to as a ball of consciousness without needing meaty genetics.
    But then someone with palsy may find that the experience of a life of jerking limbs from genetics has a formative effect on their personality. So I think things like character, experience, physical atoms, all bleed into eachother. Which is WHY we need to LOVE our physical atoms and not give them BAD TREATMENT.

    In the rush to rid the world of bad treatment, a worthy campaign, there can be a rush to negate the importance of physical atoms.

    Our physical atoms are important and can go wonky or ill from time to time.

    Telling someone they are ill when they are not ill but are merely being their own personality is bad treatment. That has to end.

    And I do not wish to see the actually ill ever badly treated. So that has to end.

    But it is also bad treatment to say that the ill cannot be feeling ill.

  • My dinner was smoking and I wrote that standing up. Let me soften my guffaw.

    Science is a beautiful storybook “choice” to believe wholeheartedly in.

    Psychology is a beautiful storybook “choice” to believe wholeheartedly in.

    If you believe in science then by all means take it seriously. Deeply so.

    If you believe in psychology then by all means take it seriously. Deeply so.

    Take what YOU like utterly seriously. Passionately so.

    Have it be YOUR pespective that informs YOUR reality. And cherish it. And share it with other whom you feel may like it.

    A Buddhist’s reality is not any better than a Mormon’s reality.

    All “choices”, of realities, are precious and valid and lovely and playful and fun.

    No “choices” of realities hurt anyone.

    Hurt only occurs when one person’s “choice” is deemed the ONLY correct choice for everyone.

    The way people impose that sense of correctness is though taking some aspect of their “choice” so seriously that they cannot let anyone else peaceably live without “having to” align with that perspective. Again this is where “consensus opinion” comes in.

    Lots of people take “logic” deadly seriously.

    In trying to assert one “choice”, say science, there can be a tendency to dismiss the “logic” of another “choice” as rubbish, say psychology. But “logic” when IT is the “choice” being taken super seriously leapfrogs from one “choice” to the other in a “reasonable” and “logical” fashion, because “logic” wants to preserve the air of solemnity and seriousness in IT as a “choice”, that everyone “has to” align with. And so the bullying of other peoples “choices” continues unabated.

    Logic always wants to make a star of one particular “choice”, such as the psychiatry “choice” OR the “anti-psychiatry “choice”. You cannot be free to like bits of both, or so you get informed. There is no relaxed looseness. You cannot be both a Buddhist and a Mormon, reason says. The overly “logical” say that it is intrinsically not “logical” to have your cake and eat it.

    So you cannot like the rationalism in science AND find it all an enjoyable romp of a myth. Logic says you cannot “play” with your “choices”. You must be diligent.

    Off to finish the second coat of paint with the help of Abba.

    Some might say two incompatible “choices”.

  • It is not that science has no relevant things to say to psychology being as it is “science”, it is that “science” itself is a big beautiful fairy story, as is most of reality.

    In psychology’s honourable striving to peel itself away from “science” it is preserving the notion that “science” is serious. Serious enough to peel from, or brush off, or expunge. Psychology does this to preserve the whole idea of revering seriousness….because it continues to want to keep its finger in that serious pie.

    Psychology will never let “science” be myth. Because psychology does not want to seem like a thing of play.

    Instead psychology will call “science” A SERIOUS THING that psychology needs to be seriously divorced from, because it is so serious, as is psychology serious.



    Further to my previous comment…

    A molestor is seldom a grungy delapidated mess of a person. A molestor is usually a banker or a lawyer or rock star or priest or a doctor or a popular pillar of the community. In other words NICE PEOPLE rape children.


    Because being nice all day and being decent all day requires having no feelings.

    Only those without feelings can care so little as to rape.

    Society insists on its people being impossibly nice and impossibly decent in a sixty hour week and then wonders why those NICE PEOPLE go off the rails. In order to impose niceness and decency society shames “the feeling”. As if “feelings” are destructive. Logic is used to “pick sides” and shame “the feeling”.

    But without “feelings” there can be NO feeling of compassion. Only “the feeling” are caring enough to not be rapists. Feelings are not “decency”.

    I will say no more on this. Shoved in a ditch will happen.

    And by the way, I must add that my spitting at academic credentials does not mean I lack any. I achieved a university degree in Divinity.

  • L. e. Cox.

    I am delighted you find my comment devoid of “reason”.

    It is a pleasure to spar with you. I am limited in how much I can.

    I have not the time of day to do the “game of logic”.

    What “logic” does is it seizes on a fractal and hoists it up for inspection but then finds it leads to another fractal and another fractal. Meanwhile a hall floor needs painted.

    I am not so interested in pusuing specific verbal fractals, like the “hope versus hopelessness” fractal, fun though that often is. I am more interested in savouring the poetry of a whole parable. When you read a poem you let the whole ensemble permeate you without picking out a word or line.

    People often seem to want to seize on any word I say to nail me to the cross of “incorrect” thinking. And you have done so by citing the word “all”. Like when you sort of say I claim that “all” the “decent” are suspect. Or like when you sort of claim that I say that “all” hope is suspect. Like when people hear me saying that I have schizophrenia they jump onto a notion that I say “all” people have it.

    The Declaration of Human Rights has it that we are each free to hold our own opinion.

    Interestingly in general the use of the objecting word “all” in response to someones freedom to “hold their own opinion” is sometimes a way to make their opinion seem non-specific and contageous and “unreasonable”, and by extention “their freedom” seems “unreasonable”.

    I am not sure I said lots of “all” things or if I did I am not sure I intended it. A comment is not a thesus.

    I find that people who do that fractal inspection of my glib “beat poetry” are taking exception to me not being “analytical” or “academic” or “logical”. For this I am “unreasonable”.

    I never want to be those things as are “logical”!

    To me “logic” is the biggest “game” there is and I refuse to play it or waltz with it, not if and when I do not choose to.

    In my life people like to critique my remarks as being carelessly saying “all” this or “all” that, as if I am generalizing. Mostly they do so to demean me. It is a way of saying…

    “You are not precise and logical”


    “You are not obeying the game rules of academia and are being childish”.


    “You are being to womanish”.

    But I say that “rules” pick “sides”.

    Logic “picks sides”.


    Peace is about Oneness. Oneness accepts diversity as if different things are not sides but are each all expressions of the whole.

    I enjoy refusing the demands of “logic”. I am happy to flamboyantly be childishly saying “all” fairies are lovely, and “all” chocolate cakes taste great, and “all” mean people are bullies.

    Of logic I don’t give a stuff.

    I will say that I have lots more to say on everything I produce in the comments section but I am aware that what people do in my life is shove me in a ditch, then hear my ideas, then steal my ideas, shove me in a ditch, and win awards for my ideas. Whilst I am wanting my ideas to prosper, not least because where they come from is somewhere that does not work on a level of awards or identity but rather generosity of sharing, I also know that my ideas are apt to be snatched up and used willy nilly without the infinite care they require.

    For instance, in all my many years at these muses I DO outline a “difference” between being “ethically caring” and being neurotically “decent”.

    But if I start spelling that out in a tiny comments section I will not paint my hall.

    May I respectfully suggest you to back and see your responses to my comments. You seemed to go for saying I said “all”.

    It would be like person A saying…

    “I do not like rain. The rain is heavy”.

    And person B saying…

    “You cannot logically say that ALL rain is heavy, I refuse to buy that!”.

    What is really going on is person B compelling person A to “be specific”. Be “logical”.

    Logic is not the only way to understand a person. People here often deride psychiatry for being that way.

    There is another way.


    You either get the gist of them or you do not.

    What I find sad in the comments section is the habitual use of clinical scientific scrutiny to unravel clinical scientism.

    You say you are spiritual. I love this about you.

    But then…

    If science is not your God why speak in that logical tongue at all?