Hi there, If you read this bit already the JUMP to next section.
(Definition of Terms on Right)In the various sections of these closely linked websites you will read some logical arguments about 'Mental Health', 'Mental Illness', 'Intelligence', 'Disability', 'Normality', 'Genetics', 'Abuse', 'Prejudice', 'Discrimination' and many new concepts in the area of 'Human Science', Anthropology, social politics, conventional human thinking and even economic understanding. At first glance you may think we are stating the obvious, or referring to ideas that have gone before. At other times you may be convince we are being too critical of professionals and institutions, or too idealistic. Many feel that we are being totally unrealistic. Sometimes you may think the grammar is strange and too convoluted. You will find spelling mistakes and typo's. There will even be actual grammatical errors. All that I can say to convince you of the value of these ideas, is that most of what has been written has been successfully put into practice, by myself and others working with me, over a period of 35 years. The ideas have been well tested and successful in most instances they have been used and for the vast majority of people I/we have worked with. The concepts, techniques, strategies and 'perceptual / conceptual transformations' have also helped explain and support many clients and professionals difficulties with conventional ideas and methods in social work, mental health and dealing with dependencies with 'disablement'. The idea of 'Alternative Realities' is a very useful way of dealing with and understanding 'difference'. You may not initially agree with much of what is written and some of it may feel very uncomfortable to read, or to contemplate. In Social Science and the more practical areas of the Health and Social Care Professions, Therapy, Counselling, Justice, Policing, etc., there are often more opinions than facts; more prejudices than justices. The For all the appearance of 'opinion', most of what you will read here and elsewhere on the web pages, is based upon very substantial facts, well evidenced and replicable with relative ease, once the basic principles are better understood.. I have very little use for opinions. Unless something can be proven to work for me and shown to beneficially work for others, it is not worth engaging. I really do not have enough time to play with 'opinions' and try to avoid them whenever I can. I will deal with Hypotheses and Theories, provided they are; constructed in forms that explain and predict better than existing explanations; form a sound basis to providing more effective and reliable outcomes; and remain open to challenging, improving and even refuting. The reason for the detailed and sometimes convoluted arguments, the reference to anecdotal evidence and requests to suspend conventional beliefs; is so that you are able to perceptually and conceptually put yourself in a more 'mentally open' position. This is essential for considering alternative perspectives and is critical for radical forms of socio-therapeutic working. The underlying concepts are actually very simple, once we shake off the clutter of prejudices and conventional assumptions. We are so well socialised into the thinking of our culture, some very crude assumptions are taken as fundamental facts. We could not cope otherwise and would very much be the outsider. Getting back to that 'innocent intelligence is very hard work, but is possible and the rewards, having also established some normal, 'adult' credibility, are incredible. This material we provide will either be supported by the evidence that we provide, or for which there is available evidence that can be better interpreted by the methods we are promoting. To help this, I also provided anecdotes and analogies. These ideas challenge many of our fundamental prejudices and conventional understandings, including many professional assumptions. That will provoke reactions and criticisms, in spite of the fact they will be seen to WORK! To win the hearts and minds of professionals, institutions and the community, we have to use every form of convincing argument and persuasion available, to overcome the generalisations, the vested interests and the media prejudices. Some material will be hard to read and conceive, but is understandable once your mind is 'opened'. Some items will be challenging to some of our understanding of 'self' and 'others' and some will be humorously liberating. As a precursor to your reading, you may want to read some of the definitions of key terms and associated concepts that are used in these web pages. To better understand these definitions, without introducing the usual connotations, I suggest that you consider each definition as corresponding to a set of closely associated concepts, each 'magnifying' the others. This allows us to formulate the proper 'gestalt' out of the interrelated and essential concepts. The Journey you are about to go on is as exciting as sitting on a beam of light and travelling throughout space and time. You will be able to watch frames of reference bend and expand as you contemplate different perspectives. You will be able to get in touch with your most child like wonder and thirst for pure knowledge, unhindered by the nagging of parents and adults. This is the journey that Einstein took when he developed his Theory of Relativity and went on to search for a General Theory. Little did he know he was establishing the foundations for the development of Relativistic Psychology. Similarly, RD Lang suspended his belief of conventional understanding of human perceptions of 'reality' and open the window on Social Psychiatry. We live in a Relativistic Universe of personal and social understanding, each person having a unique perspectives, but agreeing to a number of distortions and compromises, so that we can better communicate and understand our shared social needs. Unfortunately, sometimes this compromise goes too far and more and more people are pushed to the boundaries, while others congregate on the middle ground, often smothering one another. Some of us, who are technically on the outside of the domain of normality (Like Einstein, RD Laing and many others) have the confidence to find a 'worm hole' into 'normality' and establish a bridge and develop a good enough shared language to enable us to get bye, while privately holding onto our unique perspectives. In doing this we broaden our perspectives and gain further insight into out relativistic universe. It is not always a very comfortable position, but usually pays dividends in the end, opening the shutters and shining a light upon a new and useful perspective on ourselves and others. Welcome to our universe, I hope that I am able to guide you through it safely, before you return to your own, often intellectually stifling and incredibly punishing dimension. On your return, I would ask that you look afresh are those people who do not fit well with their fellows and understand that many are strangers like myself, who have been less fortunate than I. In being 'different' they have been sent mad, or remained private to themselves, while thinking beyond the competence of those around them, but considered stupid for doing so. One more thing before we move on. The theoretical explanations I am proposing, the strange request that I sometimes make and the highly rationalised arguments that I repeat in various forms, are Logico-deductive Scientific Theories and Mental Experiments to explain things that just seemed to consistently work for me in the work that I do naturally, often without needing to think. Those of you that value 'intuition' and are open to things beyond what are conventionally explained by 'empirical science' and the peculiar prejudicial forms of social science, don't be put off by the wordiness. My approach is precisely to rationally validate those aspects 'alternative' perspectives that are often decried by the more rational critics; those who wish to hold onto their conventional wisdoms and very powerful positions. Lets get straight to it. There are two broad themes to what I have to describe. Firstly, there are various, rather rigid, assertions about what mental health and mental ill-health, fundamentally are. The second is concerned with how societies and cultures understand and react to 'altered' mental states and alternative psychological and cultural perspectives. In this discussion I will try to avoid the use of terms that are normally used for 'mental illness' (as much as I can), as these have too many connotations and distorted meanings (including their original meanings). It is for this reason that there are some subject areas I have to cover, even in this more down to earth approach. These are the fundamental, genetic, social, psychological, emotional, spiritual, political and economic issues which allow us to more fully understand our, psycho-social selves. Again, these subjects will be dealt with here at emotional, ethical and political levels. How we see and understand these subject areas, and the limited perspectives we have from them, is restricted by political and economic choices that we and others have made, over generations. These established perspectives therefore tend to support the status quo, keeping things much as they are. This is the 'institutionalising' process, which can sometimes go too far in maintaining established conventions and can additionally generate prejudice and relative injustice. There is institutional change, but this is necessarily slow and reflective, gradually moving towards understanding alternative perspectives, hopefully without throwing away valuable insight already obtained. The move forward is with caution and prejudice. That is; there is a necessity for change to be gradual, so as to bring most people along with the changes, at a rate that they can appreciate and adapt to. If the restrictions on 'change' are influenced by prejudices then stagnation can set in and an inevitable reaction precipitated (revolution), because of resentments. Self interest (prejudice) interrupts this process of natural cultural growth. It can tend to stop change, where this may affect the interests of an established minority, or may otherwise promote retrogressive change, to regain ground lost by previous advances. Self interest can also promote change without adequate consideration and insight into the wider consequences of the changes. To some degree, this is an unavoidable consequence of change but we could do better in anticipating most of the important 'side effect' consequences of the changes we are introducing. We do not live in a vacuum. All these things affect us and 'push' most of us along particular lifestyle routes, or stimulate us to 'react' and follow an opposite route. Sometimes these restricted options are against our better judgment and often against our best interests. This is the influence that powerful minorities, and relatively ignorant masses can have. This is also how much mental illness appears to arise. Even serious mental illnesses are affected by established conventions, attitudes and limited cultural perspectives within our societies. There is evidence of the natural progress of change and adaptation, with the predicted reactions one may expect. The rise of Feminism was a long fought and long awaited call to change. The re-balancing of the power roles within relationships and institutions. Some of the resistance to this was justifiable caution, to allow people and institutions to adapt systems and processes. Some was 'natural' resistance, which exists to ensure that we take the best of the old and incorporate (transform) it with the new. Most resistance, however, is prejudice carried on the back of the healthy caution. The result has been a long delay in the re-balancing of power and roles in relationships between men and women (in our own and other cultures), which has generated reasonable resentment and some over-reaction, both by men and women. These 'delays' create an tension, where the natural process of change is intensified and sharpened. In the process it becomes less adaptive and more reactive to the resistance. Once the battle is won, the tension is suddenly released and there is a kind of 'elastic' vibration of actions and reactions, until a new equilibrium is reached. Old and new perspectives and knowledge then become incorporated, and eventually transformed, into healthy co-operative and equitable relationships. Over the same time period we can see the same kinds of action and reaction bringing about gradual change in relation to race and colour. The pace of change has again been too slow, because of prejudice and self interests. There were the same kind of action & reaction consequences, until a radical, perhaps even revolutionary, change took place. To some degree there was an overreaction on the part of some, on both sides. The adjustments and repercussions still go on and other cultures and races, that had been previously disadvantaged, are now reacting strongly to their relatively disempowered position. Social adjustments to religious beliefs and practices are currently under way. Some have waited a long time for justice and their reactions to this procrastination, restrictive practices, intolerance and interference, has been savage. The on-going actions and reactions are as unavoidable, as in the other cases I have reflected upon. This has also been true in respect of sexual orientation. There has been resistance and a predictable revolution, with the to be expected reactions and counter reactions. The vibrations continue, affecting both sides. We can also informatively look at the development of rights, entitlements to normal expectations of living for people with Learning Difficulties, Physical Disability and sensory disabilities, like Deafness and Blindness. I have been around long enough to have seen incredibly prejudicial practices by professional and institutions. These practices were sanctioned by institutions, the professions, religion and public media, as appropriate to the then assessed needs of these groups. The 'scientific' theory and methods, used to justify the practices of the time, were corrupt and self congratulatory, much like in the case of gender, race and religion. The attitudes and supposed justifications, were clearly prejudicial and unjust, supported by the distorted, 'quasi-theories' of the time as being necessary and the only available options. Cultures just accepted the expertise, as this suited those of influence. Many others had little real choice, but still had the same underlying ignorance and prejudice to anything different, which they were not fully able to understand, perceive, or experience. The otherwise, reasonably sound, purer forms of scientific theory, of evolution, genetics, sociology, psychology, anthropology and even economics, have been corrupted. These were melted down and re-cast to suite the underlying beliefs and attitudes of the time. Religious groups reacted in an equally destructive way to help keep the prejudices thriving. Religious doctrines are frequently corrupted to justify prevailing prejudice and bigotry, by many of those who take up the flag of particular cults and persuasions, eventually incorporating this into the prevailing thinking. This may sound a little unfair. It is frequently argued that the state of knowledge at the time was limited and such errors were to be expected. In fact, there has always been valid alternative perspectives to these existing beliefs. It has been the prevailing greed, self interest, relative ignorance, coupled with the inappropriate and incompetent use of power and privilege, which has kept things as they were. This is not just an emotional argument, it is a clearly supported representation of sound theory of human development which parallels our evolution. Those valid checks and balances which are incorporated into cultures and societies, to provide stability and a measure of consistency, are open to corruption. It is always in the interest of select groups to corrupt and use these 'valid' instruments of organisation and social order. The Law, Scientific Theory and Religious beliefs all inadvertently play a part in helping to corrupt the natural adaptive nature of human social development. The 'Ministry of New Ideas' (borrowed, or stolen and corrupted from those more enlightened) also play a part in this distorting process. The institutions are often led and funded by those with a vested and self interests, often the least appropriate to take charge of such important bodies of knowledge and influence. Those with more reasoned approaches to the management of change are often seduced by other, less virtuous influences, and are corrupted in the process of fitting in with the prevailing power base of an institution. This is all done in the name of the 'management of change'. It is easy to cover up a lie by illustrating a valid truth. It is a simple conjuring trick, a mind game. Criminals play these same kinds of mind games. The drug courier will say ' I am carrying flour', a truth that he hopes will dissuade the investigator from identifying the heroine camouflaged within with it. The successful fraudster will hide his true intentions in some convincing package of truth. By slight of mind, as well as slight of hand, they will play to your greed and / or naivety, or our good intentions, to convince us to part with something they want. The more flour and flattery in the packaging, the more difficult to identify the underlying deceit, even if you know something must be wrong. Sadly, this kind of deceit also generates wider distrust, which then undermines sound thinking and more reasonable practice within and institution. They become defensive, self protecting and risk adverse. The whole package becomes corrupted by association and all other shipments become suspect. It can take a long time and a lot of energy and money, to undo these simple corruptions, once they are identified in some way. We are usually to polite to call these by their name but that is what they are, isn't it? A white collar crime which cost institutions millions of pounds, employee distress, customer dissatisfaction, reduced quality of life and even fatalities. It is precisely the same kind of process used to influence the management of institutions. The underhand and illicit competitive practices being used in modern institutions have actually made this even worse. What is just about acceptable in semi criminal, unfair world of competitive business, does not sit well with social institutions that are there to provide and even 'assess', our fundamental needs and reduce the risks that we may face. The most serious corruptions are camouflaged and we are convinced that the justifications are wholly acceptable (as some aspects often are, in principle). It is the bits that are hidden within the justifications, that constitute the corrupt use of the power in these institutions. We all pay a higher price as a result. Those who pay the highest price are those who are made exempt from having a due influence. Those who are 'disqualified' to have a say, or who are ignored, or dismissed as being irrelevant, incoherent, misguided and paranoid. Some are, of course but it is also a convenient package to dismiss all that is inconvenient. Like the elastic band being stretched to breaking point, delay natural evolution and social adaptation and you risk a revolution, with its overreactions and uncontrolled, destructive forces. Worse still, you risk the collapse of an institution (like the Wall Street Crash & Black Monday & Wednesday). How far is your institution stretching the truths, how delusional is your profession? The institutions are developed and managed by human beings and we know how powerful social forces can be in stretching truth and reality for cohesive groups of people, brought together for any kind of purpose (check out the 'isms'). Technological advances, and the associated social adaptations, provide us with new knowledge and perspectives not previously available, at least in the more advanced forms now available. Methods for recording and transmitting knowledge have advanced and are not so easily restricted to 'privileged'. We can think more freely, discuss more openly and influence more widely. The institutions are aware of this and use it to their own benefit, legitimate and otherwise. We can do the same. Presenting sound argument, examples of injustice, incompetence, dishonesty, prejudice and just plain ignorance (the most common failing). So; How does this affect the areas of mental health and the personal abuses. Well, hopefully you have already a pretty good idea of how this is happens. I am hoping you will tell me some of the ways you have experienced this. I have my more rational arguments else where in on this site. Here I want to be emotional. I have witnessed to much injustice and unreasonable practice in the name of 'mental health'. In the West we compare ourselves favourably with old Russia and other abusive mental health cultures. We are often just more clever in our ignorance and prejudice. Genius is a more secure form of madness, and conversely; madness is the negative and sometimes destructive form of creativity. The term Madness here is the concept we have taken for ourselves; to own and present in a more constructive, predictable and adaptive form. I will be giving my forceful opinions on these areas and leave the support of these opinions to else where. These come under various headings listed on the left. The biological aspects are mostly covered by the topics on Genetics and on Disability. There are two short arguments on the topics of social and psychological aspects and these are unified in Psycho-social perspective; 'Psychosocial Plugged'. Many of the political and economic arguments are well known to many and are often wrongly attributed to Karl Marks and to Communism. This is a typical way of attempting to undermine sound logic and good evidence. In fact, some of the concepts are taken from these sources but similarly, sound concepts that can be found in other political and economic circles are also borrowed and adapted for my purpose. As you will see from my discussion on Genetics and elsewhere, there are overlapping perspectives and alternative pathways to the same ends. Any idea that is sound and representative of a reality, is worth incorporating into a complex social discussion. Some pathways may be straighter than others and some concepts may be clearer. I will attempt to clean and straighten them up for you and show how they relate to each other and my broader theory. | Guidelines on the use of terms:
|
|
