Part 2: Psychiatric Subjugation and Problem of Mental Illness
""Mental illness is a myth; it is fraud. There can be no such thing as “mental illness.” An illness refers to a sickness of the body. In medical terms, someone is “ill” only if a specific biological marker, lesion or germ is discovered on or in the body. A mind cannot be ill. The term “mental” refers to mind, and it is an abstraction. It is an epiphenomenon of brain functioning or an emergent process. It is not an organism or body that can become ill. Can an abstraction, explanation, or process become ill? “Mental illness” or “mental disorder” are forms of semantic trickery.""
This video is a continuation of my criticism and condemnation of the psychiatric institution. The video is also a prelude to my talk at AnarchAWAKENing in Acapulco, Mexico next week, which is called "Psychiatry and the War on Healing."
Note: a few times I reference psychiatry as "psychology." I am meaning to say psychiatry as there is a difference between the two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Virchow
https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm
https://sterlinlujan.com/2016/02/12/lay-siege-to-the-therapeutic-state-unmake-psychiatry/
▶️ DTube
▶️ IPFS
You can point to the mind (or brain) as malfunctioning if you think of it like a computer, which many people in neuroscience believe it in fact is. A lot of behaviors that would be called abnormal in a psychological or psychiatric sense would not fit the definition of a malfunctioning computer. Conversely, many behaviors that are socially normal would in fact fit the definition of a malfunctioning computer. I think the word social is key here, because it sheds light on what they're doing.
So I agree that labeling some behavior that is simply just socially abnormal as a symptom of a disease is really just a very convoluted way of socially ostracizing people who don't conform to social norms. When you break it down like this, that's a really fucked up way to treat someone who is seeking your help as a professional.
Labeling psychological issues in terms of pain might be a more appropriate way to describe them using language we use to describe other ailments, that don't fit the definition of disease necessarily. Pain is often a subjective thing, even with physical ailments, and so is subject to the uncertainties that require us to ask the patient what their experience is. Only they can know what the answer to that question is. I'm not entirely happy with this word either for some reason, but it's the best I can come up with right now. Maybe we need to invent a new word to avoid any of this kind of confusion altogether.
It's amazing to me how much the way in which we use language can sometimes taint the thinking of entire professions. When we make errors in identifying problems via these linguistic mistakes, most practitioners couldn't help but make derivative mistakes in their approach to solving those problems.
I was having a discussion about this very thing with a friend of mine recently in regards to the word ownership. We use this word to describe a whole bunch of things that have nothing to do with property (another word with multiple meanings), and I think this creates confusion among people when they're thinking about economics. They have this very ill-defined word being used to describe one of the largest parts of the human experience, so how could they not make mistakes in their thinking as a result?
The exact example that made me notice this escapes me right now, but once I saw it there, I'm starting to see it in a lot of places. Our imprecise use of language can really have devastating effects in society if people make important decisions based off of them. We all really need to pay more attention to this.
Congratulations @sterlinluxan! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click here to view your Board
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDo not miss the last post from @steemitboard: