"Who Is Delusional? The Answer Is: We All Are"
Nov 25, 2017 11:23:37 #
"Who Is Delusional? The Answer Is: We All Are"
[img]https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4
"Who Is Delusional? The Answer Is: We All Are"
by Noel Hunter
"Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you"
- Carl Jung
"Within the mental health profession, clinicians and researchers who value a system of categorical illnesses and individual defects too often proclaim that the major feature delineating "real psychosis" from other "disorders" is the presence of delusions. Two recent articles in the New York Times exemplified for me how skewed this assertion is. It also led to a greater awareness, more specifically, of how problematic it is to view so-called delusions as meaningless indicators of disease... for we all experience delusion. How one experiences the self, the world, and relationships (usually based on our relationships with our caregivers) determines the level with which one must cling to seemingly irrational ideas in order to maintain a sense of order and meaning in the world. Let me explain...
The first article, entitled "Hating Good Government", is an op-ed piece that can be summed up by this quote: "At this point it's hard to think of a major policy dispute where facts actually do matter; it's unshakable dogma, across the board." It goes on to describe various political situations wherein people strongly adhere to their political views even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Lest anybody mistake this present piece for a political one, I am not defending the legitimacy of any of the accusations made by the NYT author; rather, the important point is that the article highlights how strongly people can believe in something that may be completely false (whatever side you might be on), and how these beliefs become even more rigid in the face of contrary evidence. None of us can deny that this happens in politics all the time... on all sides.
The other article, titled: "How Expensive it is to be Poor", can be summarized by its first paragraph: "Earlier this month, the Pew Research Center released a study that found that most wealthy Americans believed 'poor people today have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return.'" The author goes on to say that "This can be the view only of those who have not known — or have long forgotten — what poverty truly means."
Interestingly, in the first article, the beliefs are described as "dogma" and in the second as an "obtuse view." To me, these were overt examples of the universality of delusion as part of human nature. Isn't it remarkable how language can change everything when describing something?
What Are Delusions? A delusion is described as "a fixed-false belief." Using this definition, both of the NYT articles are describing delusional beliefs that just happen to be held by groups rather than lone individuals. Look, though, at how horrible this word is, and how quickly it dismisses the belief itself or, more importantly, the foundation upon which it is based. Many who are reading this blog now may believe some of the beliefs described in these articles. I imagine such persons would be enraged by my insinuation that their beliefs are delusional... and rightly so. So why do we think it is ok to do just that to people deemed "insane" or "psychotic"? I suggest that the view that "delusions" are the meaningless drivel of madmen can be the view only of those who have not known — or have long forgotten — what being mad truly means.
Delusions are the brain's way of doing its job. Even in the actually diseased brain, in those suffering the debilitating effects of dementia, the brain is trying to make sense of its surroundings based on the limited knowledge it has left or the concurrent associations that arise through the degenerative process. The beliefs themselves are not disease, but may be indicative of some internal problem (with true "disease" being only one possibility). The beliefs appear irrational due to the lack of current context with which to appropriately explain circumstances.
Where is the line between an "irrational belief" and a delusion? Some might say that "real" delusions, as in psychosis, are bizarre and completely implausible. Hmmm... so who gets to define what is bizarre? Is Scientology a delusion? Telepathy? The idea that there is a humanoid-like figure who died and came back to life after first being born to a virgin? The existence of good and evil? Who decides where to draw this ambiguous line of "bizarre" and "implausible" and a respected "belief"?
They may not always be overt or spoken aloud, but we all have delusions that underscore a great deal of suffering. This assertion is not unique to me; much of Buddhist philosophy is built on this basic tenet. Delusions are not symptoms or diseases unto themselves; they are a "side-effect," if you will, of being thinking, imperfect, humans. Trouble ensues, however, when one's beliefs fall too far astray from the majority belief and/or when it leads one to behave in seemingly bizarre, socially unacceptable, or aggressive ways. Perhaps these behaviors result in being labeled a criminal, a sociopath, a narcissist, a terrorist, an evangelical, a genius, an artist, a gangster, or, maybe it just gets one labeled as psychotic.
Trauma and Childhood Development: Any kind of ideology can provide people a sense of control, particularly when experiencing chaos or confusing random events. The more confusing, terrifying, overwhelming, chaotic or unjust the world in which one exists, the more elaborate, concrete, or fantastical the beliefs needed to feel in control, ease anxiety, and have a sense of purpose and importance. In general, belief systems serve to protect us and help us survive.
Like all other living beings, survival is the greatest instinct motivating human behavior. The term "trauma" is often used to describe events that are perceived as life-threatening and that create a sense of terror and dread; however, this term too often results in judgmental assertions of what is "bad" enough to be considered traumatic despite its subjective nature. Trauma theorists have long said that "trauma disorders" are behaviors and experiences that were once adaptive but now are causing problems. Why does this not translate beyond those recognized conditions or behaviors that are so-called "trauma-based"? I tend to talk about "trauma" because this is the field that appears to have the greatest amount of research on how problematic childhoods and overwhelming life experiences lead to what society calls "mental illness." But, really, the term refers to an internal experience of panic, dread, terror, and brushes with death.
A sense of terror and fear of death has been shown to increase when confronted with questions regarding the meaning of life often brought about during times of life crises. Furthermore, an increased fear of death develops when a person's strong beliefs are directly refuted or challenged, leading one to cling even harder to said beliefs in an effort to ease the overwhelming terror and anxiety. Protection against this cycle of psychological entrapment is brought about, in part, by close relationships and secure attachment to caregivers. On the other hand, when attachment with caregivers is damaged through engulfment, stress, neglect, inconsistency, or outright abuse, a child often learns to manage anxiety partly through symbolic representations of others. Additionally, an insecure attachment has been shown to be directly associated with odd behaviors in the face of existential fears and terror, and being diagnosed with a mental disorder.
So, when a person grows up with a fractured or undeveloped sense of self due to difficulties within the family dynamics, he or she is much more prone towards extreme emotions and socially abnormal behaviors, particularly when experiencing fear and anxiety. Usually such children have also become either hyper-vigilant (where they over-react to sensory experiences and are constantly on alert), hypo-vigilant (where they shut down and become disconnected from the self and the world), or on a roller-coaster cycle of both. When the terror-inducing experiences are overt, a belief system that makes sense to others may develop around these events. Conversely, when the experiences are covert or implicit, greater effort needs to be put forth to explain the internal extreme emotional distress, and often this is done through symbolization.
For instance, when a person is beaten or sexually abused (and it is actually acknowledged by others) and this results in overwhelming anxiety, fear, feeling unreal, feeling the world around the person is a dream, heightened sensitivity to sensory experiences, rage, and violent images haunting their very existence, it is likely that this person will have the context of the physical threat to the body to make sense of these anomalous experiences. When they hear voices, they are often more clearly related to these events and are conceived as flashbacks, and "paranoia" is contextualized as hypervigilance. Because they can make some sense of these experiences, so can all those around this person. The person may feel like they are "going crazy," but are never quite deemed so because the context for meaning-making exists, even if it is only on a superficial level.
On the other hand, when the source of one's fears and anxiety is less identifiable (for instance, experiencing severe alienation, parental engulfment, confusing communication within the family, parents who are chronically stressed, double binds, implicit discrimination, etc.) or when overt trauma is denied by others, the more confusing things become. A child experiencing these phenomena is just as threatened as he who is being beaten, but does not have the recognition of others or the context in which to make sense of his emotional state. The fact that some of these experiences are just as traumatic to a child is backed up by research: Children who experience psychological "trauma," such as emotional abuse, insults, verbal bullying, isolation, and overwhelming psychological demands within the family, are MORE likely to develop severe psychological disorders as adults than those who have been physically or sexually abused. This includes so-called "symptoms" of PTSD. Of course, too often, children experience a combination of all.
When terror and anxiety develop through psychological trauma, or when physical trauma is denied within the family, a belief system is likely to develop that serves to make sense of this illogical world. Robust research shows the undeniable link between childhood trauma and symptoms of psychosis, including delusions. Additionally, some researchers have argued quite convincingly that in many cases, delusions directly represent extreme emotional distress that can be understood through developmental processes.
Importantly, the person who is stuck in a state of terror is one whose brain has directed all of its resources on survival. This does not leave room for taking the time for "rational" thought, decision-making, patience, conforming to social norms, etc. Research shows that those who are prone to what is clinically determined to be "delusional" thinking are also more likely to impulsively jump to conclusions, generally resulting in inaccurate decision-making. Perhaps most striking, is that many of these studies are conducted with "healthy" undergraduate university students who display a wide range of "delusional" thinking, thus further underscoring the idea that delusion is universal and is not necessarily indicative of disease.
So, people develop belief systems to help them make sense of the world, ease anxiety, create identity and meaning, and to provide a sense of protection. When a person has been traumatized (psychologically or physically), has a fractured sense of self, has had their reality chronically invalidated, experiences extreme and confusing internal states, and is alienated and alone, their belief system will develop accordingly. When such a person comes to the conclusion, for instance, that they are God, perhaps this is serving to explain the power such a child had growing up to greatly affect a parental figure, the fear this child had that if he was not "good" enough his parent might die (a normal reaction of a child to a distraught parent), a sense of identity that counter-balances the internal feeling of overwhelming worthlessness, and a sense of purpose or meaning as to why he suffers so. Once such a belief sets in, everything else must be explained in terms of this to protect the belief system; anything that refutes it is either ignored or distorted to maintain the illusion of identity and purpose. The more one challenges said beliefs, the more it triggers self-hatred, increased fear, anxiety, etc, leading one to need that belief even more.
Isn't it ironic that we live in a world where "treatment" is focused on precisely that? And then we wonder why so many "patients" never heal? And this remains the case despite the fact that when a strong belief system is directly challenged, almost every human being in existence will react in the same defensive and rigid fashion.
How "Delusion" Becomes Viewed as "Illness": Unfortunately, most of what the mental health field bases its assumptions regarding "delusion" and "psychosis" on is individuals who have been referred for mental health services. Once there, they have often been acutely traumatized by the process of involuntary commitment, their immediate presentation is often exacerbated by acute reactions to drugs/alcohol, and they are seen through a prism of biases that, in turn, create iatrogenic behaviors that may not have existed before entering the system in the first place (not to mention the effect of "medications"). Once a belief has been determined "sick" or "delusional", the actions and attitudes against said person correspond. In turn, the person reacts to this invalidation and injustice in understandably extreme ways. It has been shown with so-called "normal" populations that when there is uncertainty, fear, and a sense of being treated unfair, people will exhibit extreme emotional reactions. So imagine, then, the person who is already terrified and experiencing extreme emotions and then is invalidated and unjustly imprisoned. The person will behave in a manner that confirms the biased beliefs that set off such behaviors in the first place. As R. D. Laing said in "The Divided Self": "The initial way we see a thing determines all our subsequent dealings with it."
[img]https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4
"Who Is Delusional? The Answer Is: We All Are"
by Noel Hunter
"Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you"
- Carl Jung
"Within the mental health profession, clinicians and researchers who value a system of categorical illnesses and individual defects too often proclaim that the major feature delineating "real psychosis" from other "disorders" is the presence of delusions. Two recent articles in the New York Times exemplified for me how skewed this assertion is. It also led to a greater awareness, more specifically, of how problematic it is to view so-called delusions as meaningless indicators of disease... for we all experience delusion. How one experiences the self, the world, and relationships (usually based on our relationships with our caregivers) determines the level with which one must cling to seemingly irrational ideas in order to maintain a sense of order and meaning in the world. Let me explain...
The first article, entitled "Hating Good Government", is an op-ed piece that can be summed up by this quote: "At this point it's hard to think of a major policy dispute where facts actually do matter; it's unshakable dogma, across the board." It goes on to describe various political situations wherein people strongly adhere to their political views even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Lest anybody mistake this present piece for a political one, I am not defending the legitimacy of any of the accusations made by the NYT author; rather, the important point is that the article highlights how strongly people can believe in something that may be completely false (whatever side you might be on), and how these beliefs become even more rigid in the face of contrary evidence. None of us can deny that this happens in politics all the time... on all sides.
The other article, titled: "How Expensive it is to be Poor", can be summarized by its first paragraph: "Earlier this month, the Pew Research Center released a study that found that most wealthy Americans believed 'poor people today have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return.'" The author goes on to say that "This can be the view only of those who have not known — or have long forgotten — what poverty truly means."
Interestingly, in the first article, the beliefs are described as "dogma" and in the second as an "obtuse view." To me, these were overt examples of the universality of delusion as part of human nature. Isn't it remarkable how language can change everything when describing something?
What Are Delusions? A delusion is described as "a fixed-false belief." Using this definition, both of the NYT articles are describing delusional beliefs that just happen to be held by groups rather than lone individuals. Look, though, at how horrible this word is, and how quickly it dismisses the belief itself or, more importantly, the foundation upon which it is based. Many who are reading this blog now may believe some of the beliefs described in these articles. I imagine such persons would be enraged by my insinuation that their beliefs are delusional... and rightly so. So why do we think it is ok to do just that to people deemed "insane" or "psychotic"? I suggest that the view that "delusions" are the meaningless drivel of madmen can be the view only of those who have not known — or have long forgotten — what being mad truly means.
Delusions are the brain's way of doing its job. Even in the actually diseased brain, in those suffering the debilitating effects of dementia, the brain is trying to make sense of its surroundings based on the limited knowledge it has left or the concurrent associations that arise through the degenerative process. The beliefs themselves are not disease, but may be indicative of some internal problem (with true "disease" being only one possibility). The beliefs appear irrational due to the lack of current context with which to appropriately explain circumstances.
Where is the line between an "irrational belief" and a delusion? Some might say that "real" delusions, as in psychosis, are bizarre and completely implausible. Hmmm... so who gets to define what is bizarre? Is Scientology a delusion? Telepathy? The idea that there is a humanoid-like figure who died and came back to life after first being born to a virgin? The existence of good and evil? Who decides where to draw this ambiguous line of "bizarre" and "implausible" and a respected "belief"?
They may not always be overt or spoken aloud, but we all have delusions that underscore a great deal of suffering. This assertion is not unique to me; much of Buddhist philosophy is built on this basic tenet. Delusions are not symptoms or diseases unto themselves; they are a "side-effect," if you will, of being thinking, imperfect, humans. Trouble ensues, however, when one's beliefs fall too far astray from the majority belief and/or when it leads one to behave in seemingly bizarre, socially unacceptable, or aggressive ways. Perhaps these behaviors result in being labeled a criminal, a sociopath, a narcissist, a terrorist, an evangelical, a genius, an artist, a gangster, or, maybe it just gets one labeled as psychotic.
Trauma and Childhood Development: Any kind of ideology can provide people a sense of control, particularly when experiencing chaos or confusing random events. The more confusing, terrifying, overwhelming, chaotic or unjust the world in which one exists, the more elaborate, concrete, or fantastical the beliefs needed to feel in control, ease anxiety, and have a sense of purpose and importance. In general, belief systems serve to protect us and help us survive.
Like all other living beings, survival is the greatest instinct motivating human behavior. The term "trauma" is often used to describe events that are perceived as life-threatening and that create a sense of terror and dread; however, this term too often results in judgmental assertions of what is "bad" enough to be considered traumatic despite its subjective nature. Trauma theorists have long said that "trauma disorders" are behaviors and experiences that were once adaptive but now are causing problems. Why does this not translate beyond those recognized conditions or behaviors that are so-called "trauma-based"? I tend to talk about "trauma" because this is the field that appears to have the greatest amount of research on how problematic childhoods and overwhelming life experiences lead to what society calls "mental illness." But, really, the term refers to an internal experience of panic, dread, terror, and brushes with death.
A sense of terror and fear of death has been shown to increase when confronted with questions regarding the meaning of life often brought about during times of life crises. Furthermore, an increased fear of death develops when a person's strong beliefs are directly refuted or challenged, leading one to cling even harder to said beliefs in an effort to ease the overwhelming terror and anxiety. Protection against this cycle of psychological entrapment is brought about, in part, by close relationships and secure attachment to caregivers. On the other hand, when attachment with caregivers is damaged through engulfment, stress, neglect, inconsistency, or outright abuse, a child often learns to manage anxiety partly through symbolic representations of others. Additionally, an insecure attachment has been shown to be directly associated with odd behaviors in the face of existential fears and terror, and being diagnosed with a mental disorder.
So, when a person grows up with a fractured or undeveloped sense of self due to difficulties within the family dynamics, he or she is much more prone towards extreme emotions and socially abnormal behaviors, particularly when experiencing fear and anxiety. Usually such children have also become either hyper-vigilant (where they over-react to sensory experiences and are constantly on alert), hypo-vigilant (where they shut down and become disconnected from the self and the world), or on a roller-coaster cycle of both. When the terror-inducing experiences are overt, a belief system that makes sense to others may develop around these events. Conversely, when the experiences are covert or implicit, greater effort needs to be put forth to explain the internal extreme emotional distress, and often this is done through symbolization.
For instance, when a person is beaten or sexually abused (and it is actually acknowledged by others) and this results in overwhelming anxiety, fear, feeling unreal, feeling the world around the person is a dream, heightened sensitivity to sensory experiences, rage, and violent images haunting their very existence, it is likely that this person will have the context of the physical threat to the body to make sense of these anomalous experiences. When they hear voices, they are often more clearly related to these events and are conceived as flashbacks, and "paranoia" is contextualized as hypervigilance. Because they can make some sense of these experiences, so can all those around this person. The person may feel like they are "going crazy," but are never quite deemed so because the context for meaning-making exists, even if it is only on a superficial level.
On the other hand, when the source of one's fears and anxiety is less identifiable (for instance, experiencing severe alienation, parental engulfment, confusing communication within the family, parents who are chronically stressed, double binds, implicit discrimination, etc.) or when overt trauma is denied by others, the more confusing things become. A child experiencing these phenomena is just as threatened as he who is being beaten, but does not have the recognition of others or the context in which to make sense of his emotional state. The fact that some of these experiences are just as traumatic to a child is backed up by research: Children who experience psychological "trauma," such as emotional abuse, insults, verbal bullying, isolation, and overwhelming psychological demands within the family, are MORE likely to develop severe psychological disorders as adults than those who have been physically or sexually abused. This includes so-called "symptoms" of PTSD. Of course, too often, children experience a combination of all.
When terror and anxiety develop through psychological trauma, or when physical trauma is denied within the family, a belief system is likely to develop that serves to make sense of this illogical world. Robust research shows the undeniable link between childhood trauma and symptoms of psychosis, including delusions. Additionally, some researchers have argued quite convincingly that in many cases, delusions directly represent extreme emotional distress that can be understood through developmental processes.
Importantly, the person who is stuck in a state of terror is one whose brain has directed all of its resources on survival. This does not leave room for taking the time for "rational" thought, decision-making, patience, conforming to social norms, etc. Research shows that those who are prone to what is clinically determined to be "delusional" thinking are also more likely to impulsively jump to conclusions, generally resulting in inaccurate decision-making. Perhaps most striking, is that many of these studies are conducted with "healthy" undergraduate university students who display a wide range of "delusional" thinking, thus further underscoring the idea that delusion is universal and is not necessarily indicative of disease.
So, people develop belief systems to help them make sense of the world, ease anxiety, create identity and meaning, and to provide a sense of protection. When a person has been traumatized (psychologically or physically), has a fractured sense of self, has had their reality chronically invalidated, experiences extreme and confusing internal states, and is alienated and alone, their belief system will develop accordingly. When such a person comes to the conclusion, for instance, that they are God, perhaps this is serving to explain the power such a child had growing up to greatly affect a parental figure, the fear this child had that if he was not "good" enough his parent might die (a normal reaction of a child to a distraught parent), a sense of identity that counter-balances the internal feeling of overwhelming worthlessness, and a sense of purpose or meaning as to why he suffers so. Once such a belief sets in, everything else must be explained in terms of this to protect the belief system; anything that refutes it is either ignored or distorted to maintain the illusion of identity and purpose. The more one challenges said beliefs, the more it triggers self-hatred, increased fear, anxiety, etc, leading one to need that belief even more.
Isn't it ironic that we live in a world where "treatment" is focused on precisely that? And then we wonder why so many "patients" never heal? And this remains the case despite the fact that when a strong belief system is directly challenged, almost every human being in existence will react in the same defensive and rigid fashion.
How "Delusion" Becomes Viewed as "Illness": Unfortunately, most of what the mental health field bases its assumptions regarding "delusion" and "psychosis" on is individuals who have been referred for mental health services. Once there, they have often been acutely traumatized by the process of involuntary commitment, their immediate presentation is often exacerbated by acute reactions to drugs/alcohol, and they are seen through a prism of biases that, in turn, create iatrogenic behaviors that may not have existed before entering the system in the first place (not to mention the effect of "medications"). Once a belief has been determined "sick" or "delusional", the actions and attitudes against said person correspond. In turn, the person reacts to this invalidation and injustice in understandably extreme ways. It has been shown with so-called "normal" populations that when there is uncertainty, fear, and a sense of being treated unfair, people will exhibit extreme emotional reactions. So imagine, then, the person who is already terrified and experiencing extreme emotions and then is invalidated and unjustly imprisoned. The person will behave in a manner that confirms the biased beliefs that set off such behaviors in the first place. As R. D. Laing said in "The Divided Self": "The initial way we see a thing determines all our subsequent dealings with it."
Nov 25, 2017 11:23:55 #
Better yet is when professionals assert their descriptions of what "real psychosis" is, based on people who are in their 50s and have been shocked, locked up, and drugged several times a year off and on for decades. The continuum of experience goes unrecognized and the context in which the extreme states have developed go ignored. The iatrogenic effects of the system and the so-called "treatment" is hidden and never spoken of. Even in cases where some attempt is made at meaning-making, the process may be so convoluted due to decades of interwoven associations and beliefs setting in, that the professional might still be "proven right" that no meaning can be made from "delusions."
I would venture to state that for many, "delusion" can save from a far worse fate: death of the soul; suicide; annihilation. I know for myself, one of the worst phenomena I've experienced is overwhelming internal panic and a chronic need to escape. When I have believed that I must escape a friendship because the person wishes to harm me, or quit a job because all the employees are plotting against me, or I am being haunted within my own home by beings from the netherworld, or I'm being watched by unseen boogiemen, I have found relief; there was something to escape from. When I started to realize that everything I desperately wanted to escape was within me, there was nowhere to go. How does one run away from their self? An alternate reality sometimes is the only escape that results in continued survival.
In fact, psychosis may not be a "bad" thing at all, but rather the body's way of healing. Let's look at it from an evolutionary, human survival perspective. Inflammation, now erroneously considered a disease unto itself, is actually the body's process of trying to heal itself. We drug it, haphazardly take supplements to decrease it, but when we pay attention, we might find the true disease. It is often stress, poor diet, a virus, an acute injury, and/or a lack of balance within the body that leads to its attempt to heal: inflammation.
If we just suppress the inflammation without looking at the source, we may get even sicker or even die because we have not found what the body is trying to heal from. Likewise, if we just insist on suppression of the anomalous experiences, dismiss them through terms like "delusion", and ignore their purpose, the person may get even sicker because we have not found what the body is trying to heal from (which most often is trauma, oppression, a fractured identity, and learned behavior). Sometimes the extreme experiences must be temporarily abated in order to prevent great harm, but in most cases they must be tolerated and understood in order to foster the process of healing.
What if? Imagine if mental health professionals did not insist upon gaining "insight" (really a euphemism for "believe what I tell you"), "fixing" a "broken brain", or managing "symptoms." Imagine if instead we all recognized that there is a reason someone has developed the beliefs they have and that understanding the suffering underneath is the key to healing and growth. What if we simply acknowledged a person for having a particular belief system instead of using judgmental qualifying terms like "delusion"? Mental health professionals have stopped asking "why" and instead focus so much on "what is wrong." I believe this has set back any possible advance in the field of human studies because the "what is wrong" is ever-changing so long as the "why" is never addressed. If mental health professionals were to take a moment to view strange beliefs from this perspective, it might lead them to then ask "What happened, or what is happening that makes such beliefs logical?"
What do the delusions represent, what is the need? This is where intervention may come in. Directly invalidating and negating one's beliefs is unhelpful and even harmful when they have developed to either protect from an even worse reality or to make sense of chaotic internal experiences. Understanding how they are used and what they represent opens a window into finding the source of pain or confusion. The one thing that is for certain, is that behind almost every so-called mental illness is a person who has little to no compassion for his or her self and likely loathes his or her very being. That is why "treatments" that focus on building true relationships, meaning-making, empowerment, a sense of purpose, calmness, autonomy, and validation are so incredibly powerful.
We all must strive to foster compassion on all levels. Building compassion comes from moving beyond our ego-centric viewpoints and understanding those with whom we disagree or do not understand the most. The truth is that we all live with some delusion. The recent NYT articles are just 2 examples of how delusions exist on a large societal level. Perhaps this whole blog is in some way a delusion. Maybe I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. But... what if I do? At the end of the day, really, all any of us can do is our best to hold our beliefs lightly and be wary of what we think we know, while respecting and trying to understand that which we don't. “
- http://www.sott.net/
I would venture to state that for many, "delusion" can save from a far worse fate: death of the soul; suicide; annihilation. I know for myself, one of the worst phenomena I've experienced is overwhelming internal panic and a chronic need to escape. When I have believed that I must escape a friendship because the person wishes to harm me, or quit a job because all the employees are plotting against me, or I am being haunted within my own home by beings from the netherworld, or I'm being watched by unseen boogiemen, I have found relief; there was something to escape from. When I started to realize that everything I desperately wanted to escape was within me, there was nowhere to go. How does one run away from their self? An alternate reality sometimes is the only escape that results in continued survival.
In fact, psychosis may not be a "bad" thing at all, but rather the body's way of healing. Let's look at it from an evolutionary, human survival perspective. Inflammation, now erroneously considered a disease unto itself, is actually the body's process of trying to heal itself. We drug it, haphazardly take supplements to decrease it, but when we pay attention, we might find the true disease. It is often stress, poor diet, a virus, an acute injury, and/or a lack of balance within the body that leads to its attempt to heal: inflammation.
If we just suppress the inflammation without looking at the source, we may get even sicker or even die because we have not found what the body is trying to heal from. Likewise, if we just insist on suppression of the anomalous experiences, dismiss them through terms like "delusion", and ignore their purpose, the person may get even sicker because we have not found what the body is trying to heal from (which most often is trauma, oppression, a fractured identity, and learned behavior). Sometimes the extreme experiences must be temporarily abated in order to prevent great harm, but in most cases they must be tolerated and understood in order to foster the process of healing.
What if? Imagine if mental health professionals did not insist upon gaining "insight" (really a euphemism for "believe what I tell you"), "fixing" a "broken brain", or managing "symptoms." Imagine if instead we all recognized that there is a reason someone has developed the beliefs they have and that understanding the suffering underneath is the key to healing and growth. What if we simply acknowledged a person for having a particular belief system instead of using judgmental qualifying terms like "delusion"? Mental health professionals have stopped asking "why" and instead focus so much on "what is wrong." I believe this has set back any possible advance in the field of human studies because the "what is wrong" is ever-changing so long as the "why" is never addressed. If mental health professionals were to take a moment to view strange beliefs from this perspective, it might lead them to then ask "What happened, or what is happening that makes such beliefs logical?"
What do the delusions represent, what is the need? This is where intervention may come in. Directly invalidating and negating one's beliefs is unhelpful and even harmful when they have developed to either protect from an even worse reality or to make sense of chaotic internal experiences. Understanding how they are used and what they represent opens a window into finding the source of pain or confusion. The one thing that is for certain, is that behind almost every so-called mental illness is a person who has little to no compassion for his or her self and likely loathes his or her very being. That is why "treatments" that focus on building true relationships, meaning-making, empowerment, a sense of purpose, calmness, autonomy, and validation are so incredibly powerful.
We all must strive to foster compassion on all levels. Building compassion comes from moving beyond our ego-centric viewpoints and understanding those with whom we disagree or do not understand the most. The truth is that we all live with some delusion. The recent NYT articles are just 2 examples of how delusions exist on a large societal level. Perhaps this whole blog is in some way a delusion. Maybe I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. But... what if I do? At the end of the day, really, all any of us can do is our best to hold our beliefs lightly and be wary of what we think we know, while respecting and trying to understand that which we don't. “
- http://www.sott.net/
Nov 25, 2017 11:30:21 #
Nov 25, 2017 15:05:35 #
pafret wrote:
Better yet is when professionals assert their desc... (show quote)
It took me several paragraphs to understand that your piece was really aimed at the Liberal Mind, not Conservative minds. At least that was my compassionate delusion!
Nov 25, 2017 15:28:40 #
Manning345 wrote:
It took me several paragraphs to understand that your piece was really aimed at the Liberal Mind, not Conservative minds. At least that was my compassionate delusion!
How did you find evidence of Liberalism in this article? I posted it in invite only forum because it appeared to me to be apolitical yet of sufficent gravity to not fit in chit-chat. In the author's own words: "Lest anybody mistake this present piece for a political one, I am not defending the legitimacy of any of the accusations made by the NYT author; rather, the important point is that the article highlights how strongly people can believe in something that may be completely false (whatever side you might be on), and how these beliefs become even more rigid in the face of contrary evidence."
From my point of view this was an inquiry into the nature of fixed ideas and their confomance to reality as well as suggesting that what is commonly dismissed as irrational can in fact be a rational response to the reality we live in. It is a disqusition on ossified thinking.
Nov 26, 2017 08:43:56 #
Quote - Maybe I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. But... what if I do?
In all honesty I don't have a clue what the author is talking about either .
It was said that this wasn't political but got into the welfare situation .
Personally I have a strong belief in what's Right and Wrong does that make me delusional ? I don't think so !
I fully remember growing up poor and not really knowing we were poor we never had much money but living on the farm we always had plenty to eat .
Quote from your reply >>>the important point is that the article highlights how strongly people can believe in something that may be completely false (whatever side you might be on), and how these beliefs become even more rigid in the face of contrary evidence." <<<
Lets say someone stole a $ 100 now to me that is wrong no matter how one looks at it !
Lets say someone comes back with the evidence that it's not wrong because he had no money to buy some shoes so in that case that constitutes the fact it wasn't wrong for him to do that !
Now which one of us is delusional ?
Like I said I really don't have a clue what the point is ! We all are born with a built in sense of right and wrong however there are some that will not adhere to that sense and go off in the wrong direction .
More I think about it I should have just passed on by and said anything anyway I'll leave it here .
In all honesty I don't have a clue what the author is talking about either .
It was said that this wasn't political but got into the welfare situation .
Personally I have a strong belief in what's Right and Wrong does that make me delusional ? I don't think so !
I fully remember growing up poor and not really knowing we were poor we never had much money but living on the farm we always had plenty to eat .
Quote from your reply >>>the important point is that the article highlights how strongly people can believe in something that may be completely false (whatever side you might be on), and how these beliefs become even more rigid in the face of contrary evidence." <<<
Lets say someone stole a $ 100 now to me that is wrong no matter how one looks at it !
Lets say someone comes back with the evidence that it's not wrong because he had no money to buy some shoes so in that case that constitutes the fact it wasn't wrong for him to do that !
Now which one of us is delusional ?
Like I said I really don't have a clue what the point is ! We all are born with a built in sense of right and wrong however there are some that will not adhere to that sense and go off in the wrong direction .
More I think about it I should have just passed on by and said anything anyway I'll leave it here .
Nov 26, 2017 09:06:35 #
I get what you are saying, I think. In a way, we all create our own reality based on our culture, how we were brought up and taught to perceive the world around us, and recent emotional and or physical events.
Nov 26, 2017 10:54:13 #
4430 wrote:
Quote - Maybe I don't have a clue what I'm talking... (show quote)
No, you did exactly what this forum is supposed to be about; you expressed your opinion.
As one of the other posters noted, it isn't about true moral judgments or arguments about justification. In your example the thief stole money because he needed shoes. Shoes are not necessary to maintain life so it is difficult to justify his action -- particularly since there are so many public agencies that could and would have helped such an individual. The real delusion is held by the person who excused this behavior based on the perception that those in need, have a "right" to take from those who have.
It is a delusion that all things must be "fairly shared". There are many moral aspects to this but they are basic such as, it is immoral to allow your brother to die of starvation while you have plenty. If "plenty" is finite and your own death will result from this action the morality is now different.
The delusions referred to in the article, I believe, are not concerned with such aspects but are more a result of societal conditioning in certain beliefs. A famous New York journalist, Jacob Riis, published a book entitled "How The Other Half Lives, documenting squalid living conditions in New York City slums in the 1880s. The book would be considered racist and insulting today because he visited neighborhoods of predominantly German, Italian, Irish and Blacks and characterized them according to the stereotypes of the day. Germans were clean and industrious, Italians were slovenly, prone to criminality and too fond of vino, Irish were drunks, petty thieves and sneaks and the blacks were nappy head morons who had not a care in the world and were content with their squalor.
This was the delusion of the "elites", who at that time were virtually anyone, who could speak the language and get a job. That attitude was reflected in writings and newspapers and some of it has persisted into current times, despite a plethora of examples that prove the ideas false.
This is only one half of the coin; most of us have experienced learning that something we knew to be absolute truth was, in reality, false. Observing someone who appears to be delusional and accepting that his delusion is a rational response to whatever stimulus is a far more difficult proposition.
The whole concept that this might be a proper response in order to preserve one’s life and that Psychiatry does not remove the delusion but coaches the deluded into dissembling sanity is a major leap to accept. While I can contemplate the possibility, none-the less I regard such a deluded person as “nuts”.
The author of the piece makes a plea for compassion, which is sympathetic pity, and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others. But, in reality, he has asked for empathy - to understand and share the feelings of another. That infers that I will share his delusions and that will never happen.
This was a very complicated article and I am still thinking about it.
Nov 26, 2017 10:57:13 #
The law of cause and effect is no delusion. We who are created are the "effect" of "the creator" who caused it. "God," the "creator who is outside of ourselves is no "delusion." Without Him as the object of our faith, we merely "chase our tail;" and, we continue to dwell in our delusion.
Nov 26, 2017 12:36:20 #
I think that the most of us but maybe not all that live in rural area's have a sense of compassion to those less fortunate as those in my church have time and again have gone to the aid of those in trouble .
I have witnessed many folks reaching out in anonymous ways that very few know about , but I'm inclined to think there some in the bigger cites might be less likely to do anything about the homeless .
Just an observation .
I have witnessed many folks reaching out in anonymous ways that very few know about , but I'm inclined to think there some in the bigger cites might be less likely to do anything about the homeless .
Just an observation .
Nov 26, 2017 14:56:43 #
4430 wrote:
I think that the most of us but maybe not all that live in rural area's have a sense of compassion to those less fortunate as those in my church have time and again have gone to the aid of those in trouble .
I have witnessed many folks reaching out in anonymous ways that very few know about , but I'm inclined to think there some in the bigger cites might be less likely to do anything about the homeless .
Just an observation .
I have witnessed many folks reaching out in anonymous ways that very few know about , but I'm inclined to think there some in the bigger cites might be less likely to do anything about the homeless .
Just an observation .
In smaller towns and rural settings everyone is aware of each others history and interact far more frequently than in large cities. When you know the people you are assisting it is significantly different than assisting unknown others, who may or may not be deserving. The southeastern New York mentality is such that there is no interaction between neighbors and a determined effort must be made to interact on a community level. One native told me when I first moved here, that he didn't want to know his neighbors because he didn't want any involvement in their lives. With attitudes like this is it any wonder that New York produces as many flakes as California?
Nov 26, 2017 15:00:19 #
pafret wrote:
How did you find evidence of Liberalism in this ar... (show quote)
OK, I get that, but my own little fixed and ossified delusion applies the negative side of such polemics to the liberal or progressive mind far, far more than to the conservative mind. Rationality versus irrationality. Common Sense versus boondoggles. Appreciation of institutions versus wanting to tear them down, Upholding the law rather than skirting it, Believers in Christianity versus atheists, contributing to community versus isolating one's self, etc. Yes, all fixed ideas applicable to today's world, and not all that delusional. Perhaps it is because some people develop a very strong Belief System, and tend to defend their ideas as best they know how.
Nov 26, 2017 15:06:27 #
pafret wrote:
In smaller towns and rural settings everyone is aw... (show quote)
True I've been in big cities and prefer to live out in wide open country .
Problem with confining masses of people into a controlled concrete pins "" and you'll more than likely won't like my comparisons "" is that people are just pigs placed in confinements they get bored then one starts to bite the tail of another one and keeps at it , then another one sees it and they too start the biting and before long they have it bleeding , and before ya know it others jump in and if that pig getting his tail bitten isn't removed it will die !
Only way to keep this from happening is to cut the tail off at birth then it'll never be a problem .
Nov 26, 2017 18:48:46 #
LAPhil
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
pafret wrote:
One native told me when I first moved here, that he didn't want to know his neighbors because he didn't want any involvement in their lives. With attitudes like this is it any wonder that New York produces as many flakes as California?
Interesting connection there. It never occurred to me that people who are unsociable also tend to be politically flaky. It probably is a factor, especially considering that the most populous states tend to be very liberal.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.