karphead posted:you're nuts
AZ_IZ_OT posted:the young man experiencing schizoid occultist delusions
i've been found out
karphead posted:has r.d. laing been diminished in the community? i always credit him as my seer into sanity...
they've had two whole Goosebumps movies man!!
AZ_IZ_OT posted:laing’s place in psychiatric orthodoxy is parallel to dolan’s observations regarding talking to academics about artists they consider anathema
well, i'm glad i'm not part of the psychiatric orthodoxy and just some dude that needed help with his broke
brain
some stuff on new atheism, cause im jsut thinking about philosophy of science and some stuff is here:
i think leftists who werent heavily involved in the atheist community for a while dont realize there were people who were less bad too, for an insight into that kind of split you should look into the awful thing called 'elevatorgate' lol. even then you could still make the argument that the whole 'skeptic' mindset has serious issues that need to be examined which is true. however, not all of them are dawkins-tier shitbags either, some of them are at least well-meaning naive progressive liberals or whatever too. pz myers was one of my fave bloggers and hes not too bad.
im a definite atheist still but only really in a minor way. i think im the kind of person who is just constitutionally incapable of believing in god and of course i have all my stupid opinions about religious belief or whatever that atheists have but i also understand that comes from a place of not being spiritually-inclined at all. its not a way of thinking thats natural to me. i am no longer part of the atheist "community" because their brand of atheism is a result of an ideology i am highly critical of for many reasons. i am like a marxist atheist type now so its very minor to me and my basis for it is different these days, idk. im not really trying to defend it im just more annoyed at the people who think "new atheism" was politically uniform and criticize it without enough information because in that case, the criticisms they could be making are really not the best ones.
ive been posting about positivism and marxist science a lot today and all of that shit is very related to what i think people should actually be saying about new atheism and "skepticism" as a way of life
i know it sounds concerning when i say i have "stupid opinions" about being religious but i promise im not an ass and its kind of limited. i understand that its a really complicated situation and to be real the whole "cathbol" thing is insanely appealing to me, there is something about catholicism i really admire in a genuine way, but im just not.. like.. ugh i dunno. i dont think that way. theres a lot about the paradoxes of christianity that really fascinates me and i can respect it. i dont know a lot about religion in general but i think with exposure thats the kind of position i can come to.
some stuff on uhhh autism this is getting into PA territory, ugh some weird personal disclosures that i am self-conscious about in here but oh well i do it for the posting
anywho, the dsm is a fucked up mess and psychiatrists dont even follow its rules as they are. once psychoanalysis was abandoned as a framework the theoretical underpinnings of the diagnostic categories were lost you got people saying they were autistic and schizophrenic, or had bpd and bipolar disorder which to a theoretically-minded person does not make a lot of sense. its just a random checklist of superficial symptoms with no regard for the structure of someones mind. it doesnt make sense to have a bunch of discrete conditions. not to invalidate what people struggle with at all, and this is what psychs tell them they have and its all fucked up, and the actual things you feel and experience are real. but the way they are theorized is whack in the mainstream literature. im not autistic, but from a psychoanalytic standpoint schizophrenia and autism are closely related and fall in the same broader category with some differences in manifestation and personality dynamics. that is to say people assume im autistic which upsets me cause of all the fucking baggage that comes with what people assume or think it is these days, even autistic people because i have a very different idea of it. but imo, im schizophrenic and its pretty close. thats my unproblematic take
theres so much stuff saying wow we are discovering links between autism and schizophrenia, like its new. this was always what was understood to be the case
like yea i have a completely flat affect all the time, i literally talk exactly like my posting voice would lead you to believe. im faceblind to an extreme degree. i have intense fucking obsessions and interests that cause me weird suffering cause im so committed to stuff and it causes internal conflict. but im like, schizo-ocd, and that can be hard to tell from autism though they are different. every psychosis is different and one of the isnights of psychoanalysis is that theres a very broad spectrum of expression of it. not everyone is a severe paranoid schizophrenic. "schizoid personality disorder" can look very similar to aspergers but its a mild form of schizophrenia. some schizophrenias look a lot like DID and have hardcore dissociative elements. hell a good section of lacanians think bpd is a mild psychosis too (the other half relate it more to a kind of hysterical issue). dunno lol
i dont know a lot about DID or dissociative stuff in general, mainly because those are actually concepts foreign to psychoanalysis. early on when this stuff was being theorized historically, there was a lot of interaction between freud and bleuler (who was a eugenicist lol but i wouldnt tar his followers with that, its not evident anymore or whatveer). bleuler actually came up with the term schizophrenia though freud had very different ideas about what caused it and how it worked. anyhow, freudians went on to become psychoanalysts and bleulers followers went on to develop trauma theory, and dissociation and DID is very much more their interest. its not something freudians really think about at all because their theoretical model is so different. trauma theory seems interesting and useful but i know almost nothing about it, also from what i do know PA is more theoretically powerful in a lot of respects but id say the trauma theory stuff is still worth engaging with from what little i do know. anyways i learned most of this history from this book which also talks in depth about the actual relationship between dissociation and schizophrenia definitely rec https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Ul5dKwvig2aTJhT1UxZ3EzUkk/view
i could rehash the theoretical issues with the psychoanalytic shit on "bpd" as en entity (despite its limited practical usefulness) but theres an entire paper that will get people up to speed and further i have an entire book on it if you want more lol http://londonsociety-nls.org.uk/LibraryLS/Texts-from-the-the-PN/Why-so-many-borderlines.pdf
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Ul5dKwvig2ejI2cnJLa0xLX3M/view
also of course this classic post which focuses more on the political use of bpd as a diagnosis https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2007/10/the_diagnosis_of_borderline_pe.html
neurodiversity as a concept is peak ideology anyways lol. even the word reveals its ideological nature
i could write a lot about this but im probably just gonna say something brief for now, its the abandonment of a radical critique of psychiatry and in particular eugenicist ideas in favor of accepting at face value the kinds of research that is conducted with the intention of justifying oppression. its absolutely worthless anyways because the methodology is so fucked up. scientists need to be trained in philosophy or at least know how to think about it, in that absence they just follow this paradigm that they were taught and dont know how to design a study or use the kinds of tools thoughtfully which compounds the problem, which is already fucked because of a very crass version of positivist ideology which was already pretty crass even in its most sophisticated form. theres also the historical-ideological reasons to consider why that is the dominant form of ideology and how it developed which im not gonna get too much into. this is why socially you see this kind of narcissistic self-fetishization and infantilization imo, its a direct expression of conceding to the dominant narrative of mental illness and probably also compounded experiences of seeing yourself that way. my answer? psychoanalysis which was suppressed and distorted in much the same way as marxism and for very similar reasons. i typed more than i said i would and i think ive said it much better before but whatever
the disability rights stuff and neurodiversity stuff even are very different in their aims and assumptions and the former seems so much better, the kind of disability rights activism allied with like radical antipsychiatry/psychiatric survivor movement is so much more my speed. theres nothing wrong with wanting understanding. im sorry people do that to you, a lot of people do and its not justified but at the same time the self-infantilization and stigmatizing yourself is very real thing too and i dont like it at all. dunno. my take
alright well i think that is it. sorry thats all fragmented and maybe hard to tell what i am responding to but im not gonna bother to psot the responses lol
cars posted:uncertain that the history of these forums recommends abolishing brain doctors
ive tied my support for trofim lysenko into my antipsychiatry ideas ideologically, which i would like to be congratulated for, at the same time you do have a point and i should see a normie psychiatrist immeditaely.
graphicalUSSRinterface posted:my current analyst is a lacanian who specializes in psychosis who also happens to be a fucking tankie. we are friends on facebook and i frequently see him post five-paragraph excepts from obscure stalin writings on there at like 4am. we chain-smoke in his office and half the time spend the entire session talking about politics and i really dont know how this guy is supposed to help me get better frankly
it sounds like he's got a pretty good scam going on but maybe not so good for you
Petrol posted:it sounds like he's got a pretty good scam going on but maybe not so good for you
maybe but i dont know what hed be getting out of it. i dont pay him anything lol. he offered to apply to medicaid just so i could see him and i wouldnt have any co-pays but as far as i can tell he never figured that shit out so hes just seeing me for free
cars im gonna reply but im getting my thoughts together
I had to quit because the circumstances of my life were making showing up somewhere 4x a week 90 minutes away from my house while holding down a job increasingly difficult. I wish I could have kept going with it but I was becoming a nervous wreck, plus it's apparent by now that bailing on things is in my nature. It was a very nuanced and intense process for me. I certainly didn't have anything resembling a 'conversation with a friend' during that time. The analytic posture, the silence, etc. I still don't know anything personal about the guy or his politics even after a year of seeing him. I guess partially that may be the difference between psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapy.
im very glad i found a lacanian this time especially one who meets every requirement i could ask for and lol more. hes a straight ML which is really something. i brought in my art once to show him and he clearly felt intimidated and admitted he didnt know anything about art, which surprised me actually, cause interest in art is really common for analysts who work with psychotic clients but i guess you cant have everything so its fine. but there are not a lot of lacanians in the US and they are marginalized in the training institutes and in academia too. i know the latter seems like a weird claim, but its similar to this situation for marxists in academia. its relegated to the literary studies department and neutered by being viewed as an interpretive framework divorced from practice. lacanian theorists dont engage with clinical work or read case studies or anything but theory and this is really all you ever see. naturally, divorced from its concrete foundations, you get these stupid abstract to the point of not being specific and frankly extremely boring theoretical papers. ilyenkov's "dialectics of the abstract and concrete" is coming to mind here as useful to making this point (i highly recommend reading this as its had an immense impact on my thinking and its one of those things i come back to all the time https://www.marxists.org/archive/ilyenkov/works/abstract/index.htm), but one of the insights of this work is illustrating very clearly the relationship between concrete and abstract ideas, and he says it in a way that illuminates the problem to a point you never hear in these discussions. abstract ideas exist in a dialectical relationship with the concrete, and if you are not engaged in practice the abstraction becomes much less specific to the point of being destroyed. its been a while since ive read it so im not sure if im communicating it well, but its one of those books that ive internalized to the point of affecting my reasoning even if im not explicating its ideas well. recommend
to answer your question cars, the "goal" of psychoanalysis is to be able to articulate desire. i know that means nothing if you havent read lacan but im not going to elaborate on that too much at this time even at the risk of not answering your question. this at least is the lacanian understanding. institutional ego psychology took a much different approach , and their methods and rationale amount to helping someone adapt to american society, which amounts to fixing them up just enough as to make them more easily exploitable. it was conformist , and dont take that as a stupid anarchist criticism, because what it was conformist to was to again american ideology. it paved the way for cbt ideologically and eventually what the situation is with the dsm, where the diagnostic categories have been stripped of their underlying theoretical basis so much as to say nothing about anything other than really superficial issues. this is a uniquely american problem and explains the popularity of figures such as kohut and kernberg, the former of which was the leading figure of the said insitute here in chicago. the historical story about the early roots of psychoanalytic practice and its spirit could be learned from 'the repression of psychoanalysis' by russell jacoby, its evry good. i would also recommend 'social amnesia' also by jacoby. the former isnt online last i checked and i had to buy a copy but ive been meaning to scan it. i probably should have fit this point in earlier somehwere but i want to say the marginalization of psychoanalysis is also very american. it has always been and still is very popular in latin america generally and also france. you find a lot of kleinians in the US and theyre some of the better analysts you can find here considering lack of access to lacanians, but yeah typically in latin america its split 50-50 between kleinians and lacanians. france has some consevrative ego psychology types too but also lots of lacanians of course. in addition lacan theoretically owes a lot to klein i would say though lacanian theory is much more well-developed and useful. boy this was a long post i doidnt know the point of
Belphegor posted:The analytic posture, the silence, etc. I still don't know anything personal about the guy or his politics even after a year of seeing him. I guess partially that may be the difference between psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapy.
it is yeah but this kind of analytic demeanor is not universal especially historically. my last analyst resembled that more closely but she didnt treat me that way either. in general, analysts used to have much more involved lives with their clients and knowing each other personally was not unusual. i suspect for me though my therapists pick up on me being psychotic very quickly. i dont look or act normal at all really, my demeanor and ways of talking even if im not totally disorganized jsut scream that. tfw not normie-passing. every analyst knows you act very differently with psychotic patients and the process of treatment is completely different from that of a neurotic person so im guessing thats whats going on and it does resemble more of a friendship. theres a bunch of theoretical reasons for this approach but im tired of posting long shit at the moment so im not gonna explain at this time.
Belphegor posted:i didnt mean to cast aspersions on your analyst and analysis, im actually jealous, I wish I could be one of this guys analysands. I cant tell if the unease I sometimes felt around my former analyst was some part of transference, or what.
no worries , also yeah its very hard to believe this guy is even real lol
Since many doctors in the United States are baby-brained idiot bandits for closely related reasons, what this means nowadays is that a lot of providers are no longer credentialed with any insurance at all, public or private. Many types of medicine academically recognized as necessary to maintain medium-term social stability under capitalism are effectively luxury goods today, often practiced by drunken incompetents, and I'm sure everyone here knows what I think is a necessary but not sufficient condition for that to change. I guess we'll see if the eggheads are right or not.
nearlyoctober posted:well i know that plenty of communists (who are at least as communist as i am by any practical measure) insist there is nothing in freud worth keeping. so i'll just speak for myself. i think i'm attracted to psychoanalysis on the basis that it not only claims to reveal the hidden content of an individual's processes (as they happen) but that it then offers a framework to decide how to move forward. i think that in lieu of an effective party the question of ethical activity is left up to the individual whether we like it or not. freud never said this though and it's just my modern adaptation. i'm just a fledgling student and i can't speak to lacan in particular so i'll just stop there.
Not picking on you or accusing you of the below, your post just brings the idea to mind:
People who cannot get over their literalist readings of things are perhaps not the death of us all, but they are the death of far too many. It baffles me that more people cannot read Freud as a troll, his so-called studies as a grift. And not just any troll but a sarcastic one who hides his own ego masterfully both in plain sight and mockingly behind his patronizing faux self-deprecation.. at the same time. From that point of view Freud is a genius, and makes all the sense in the world.
There doesn't have to be scientific progress in every word on the page. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no end of history to get to.
And furthermore, the only reason any of this shit is still in our heads is the CIA thinking they could program us all like fucking computers through most of the 20th century, lol.
anyway I'm prepping to state my case, again, to a very busy professional who likely doesn't give much of a shit about me but has enormous power over my well being. I'll be fine and its really not so bad but it got me thinking about this quote that's been circulating and how much more fucked a frustrating situation like the above would be for someone with far worse shit to deal with.
cw for suicide
“A picture showing a man or a woman jumping off a window is a picture of a person with psychiatric issues who, suddenly, acts in an incomprehensive way, if we exclusively frame the person leaning out of the window or falling from it. However, were we to enlarge the field of vision in order to obtain the whole image, we would be able to see, for example, a line of police vans with military equipment about to evict the person in question.
The real reason behind the act is the situation of vulnerability with regards to basic items necessary to live that many people experience in our time. Knowledge of the specific facts, the missing parts of the image, make the supposed psychiatric issues melt like snow in the sun.
Psychiatry is the act of eliminating context. Psychiatry doesn’t listen, it doesn’t want to listen, it doesn’t want to know. It only considers the fragment, an unjustified behavior or an idea openly in contrast with social conventions and it silences it.
Going back to the picture of the person who jumps off the window: the cut that eliminates the police aggression will be made by, for instance, a newspaper that belongs to the bank who evicts the person. This would lead to the apparent non-existence of a cause for the search for death, in order to direct the discourse towards the psychiatric issues of a sick person. In other words, psychiatry is at the service of power. Of course, it is much easier to quickly eliminate those who denounce important issues rather than confronting and solving them, like guaranteeing everyone, no exception, a house and an equitable distribution of the planet’s resources.”
— Paolini, M. 2018. Preface. In: Antonucci, G. El prejuicio psiquiátrico. Pamplona: Katakrak
Over9000ft posted:Not picking on you or accusing you of the below, your post just brings the idea to mind ...
no harm no foul. i think about that post a lot and i would say i'm ashamed of it but really i just think it's funny. it dawned on me recently that i don't know how to read at all much less know how to read freud/lacan LOL. i have no idea why i would take lacan's schema seriously over someone else's. i have a terrible habit of taking these proposed structures (of the psyche, in this case) at face value and understanding them on their own isolated terms without having any methodical ability to judge them in terms of reality. same goes with marx. i read some neoclassical textbooks a few months ago and suffered a complete ego breakdown when i realized how often i was nodding my head while reading along. lots of fun. now i'm trying to develop a practice of polyvalent interpretation and stuff that i never learned in school cuz i'm a stupid programmer. it's like you said: it's peak irony that we (i) would read freud literally. seriously funny
as for your last sentence, i haven't given up on reading/psychoanalysis and i'm wondering if you think we should?
cars posted:I did some work on Lacan in school, but my knowledge is glancing at best and filtered through Ian Parker.
if you want to see what clinicians do the best guy to start with is bruce fink. really interesting and actually clear. the lacanian subject, a clinical introduction to lacanian psychoanalysis, and fundamentals of psychoanalytic technique are probably the ones you want. you can look em up and decide which sound interesting to you but fink is a great writer and makes it all very interesting so i imagine you will want to read all three.
Over9000ft posted:Not picking on you or accusing you of the below, your post just brings the idea to mind:
People who cannot get over their literalist readings of things are perhaps not the death of us all, but they are the death of far too many. It baffles me that more people cannot read Freud as a troll, his so-called studies as a grift. And not just any troll but a sarcastic one who hides his own ego masterfully both in plain sight and mockingly behind his patronizing faux self-deprecation.. at the same time. From that point of view Freud is a genius, and makes all the sense in the world.
There doesn't have to be scientific progress in every word on the page. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no end of history to get to.
And furthermore, the only reason any of this shit is still in our heads is the CIA thinking they could program us all like fucking computers through most of the 20th century, lol.
your post reminded me of this one thomas bernhard interview where he is asked about freud
FLEISCHMANN: Since the days of Sigmund Freud and the advent of psychoanalysis the interpretation of dreams has played a big role in Austria. What is your attitude to all that?
BERNHARD: I’ve never spent enough time reading Freud to say anything intelligent about him. Freud has had no effect whatsoever on dreams, or on the interpretation of dreams. Of course psychoanalysis is nothing new. Freud didn’t discover it; it had of course always been around before. It just wasn’t practiced on such a fashionably huge scale, and in such million-fold, money-grubbing forms, as it has been now for decades, and as it won’t be for much longer. Because even in America, as I know, it’s fallen so far out of fashion that they just lay people out on the celebrated couch and scoop their psychological guts out with a spoon.
FLEISCHMANN: I take it then that psychoanalysis is not a means gaining knowledge for you?
BERNHARD: Well, no; for me it’s never been that kind of thing. I think of Freud simply as a good writer, and whenever I’ve read something of his, I’ve always gotten the feeling of having read the work of an extraordinary, magnificent writer. I’m no competent judge of his medical qualifications, and as for what’s known as psychoanalysis, I’ve personally always tended to think of it as nonsense or as a middle-aged man’s hobby-horse that turned into an old man’s hobby-horse. But Freud’s fame is well-deserved, because of course he was a genuinely great, extraordinary personality. There’s no denying that. One of the few great personalities who had a beard and was great despite his beardiness.
FLEISCHMANN: Do you have something against beards?
BERNHARD: No. But the majority of people call people who have a long beard or the longest possible beard great personalities and suppose that the longer one’s beard is, the greater the personality one is. Freud’s beard was relatively long, but too pointy; that was typical of him. Perhaps it was the typical Freudian trait, the pointy beard. It’s possible.