This is a very interesting conversation and I salute both voices for the initiative of creating a civilised dissenting dialogue.
I am not an expert on mental health (i.e. I am not officially trained as a mental health worker). I have a background as a social scientist and experience as a therapist.
What makes this conversation interesting to me is how it combines multiple scales and multidimensions when discussing the theme of mental health. It unpacks some of its core themes, showing their grain and depth but above all reveals the holographic nature of mental health - the crisis and convolutions around its multiple natures, biological, social, political, philosophical - all reflecting the larger civilisation development crisis.
The tension between different positions in this dialogue seem to represent the wanting to keep/establish boundaries and the recognition that the intersection between biology, social, economic and political systems is inevitable. This tension is to some degree necessary in this historical moment when are all reshuffling things…
In my view, for interesting progress to happen 2 things need to fall into place: 1) the recognition that science as a system of knowledge production and sense making is inherently a cultural phenomena. I find it surprising that at this point we can still conceive of “empirical facts” - of whatever nature - as exempt from a human subject embedded in context. So of course the practice of medicine and psychology is profoundly socially conditioned and cannot but be so. The exemptionalism that still lingers in medical science is epistemologically naive and sterile, both in theory and in praxis. 2) assuming the multidimensional aspect of mental health (biological, cultural, etc) more than putting our efforts in establish clear boundaries (or even worse, colonising territories from any side) we should do well in applying full creativity in establishing correlations between phenomena, assuming the full complexity of what mental health means. In so doing exploring the deep ground of these articulations: capitalism; trauma; fear; power; human evolution, etc.
It is really, really simple, the problem is the University system selects for a credulous, schizoid personality type. I have never seen a University, but I have heard of them...
"Sounds, colors, heat and cold, according to modern philosophy are not qualities in objects, but perceptions in the mind. (Hume 1738: Bk III, part I, Sect. 1 [1911: 177]; Bk I, IV, IV [1911: 216])" (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/color/#ProCol)
Now, Hume says "perceptions in the mind," and I take it that this is fairly basic neuroscience: our perception of colour is wholly predicated of ocular and neurophysiology. So, when someone sees a red and green light as the same sort of yellowish colour (I know a chemist who saw that way, he had to lie to get his driver license...) this is not because they are "wrong" (mad, mentally ill) it is simply that they have a different physiology.
Now, we apply this to the physician. The sensation of illness or sickness is akin to colour. The weight of things, the volume of them, these are real and objective properties. So, for example, we might put physicians who perceive mental illness to exist into a brain scanning machine, and we go "oh, this is the aggregate scanning pattern produced after scanning psychiatrists, this is why they perceive mental illness to be a thing."
Of course, we do not do this. We put the mental patients into the brain scanning machines and go "oh, this is why they are mentally ill." Or whatever scanning machine, or experimental apparatus.
At the end of the day, the reference standard is not objective, like mass or weight, it is subjective, like colour. It is the same for all perception of illness or injury. The social issue of "agnosia" that is, lack of insight into one's condition, is really not a thing so much as a neurological difference. This is the issue, if you really take neurology seriously, it is not a lack of insight, it is simply a different physiology. Just as pathological states are reducible to physiology, so are non-pathological states. And indeed the distinction between the two is purely a physiological process, as is the division of sounds into words, etc. etc.
It is really not so difficult if you are not schizoid. But if you are...well...it is not your fault, hopefully Alma Mater takes care of you.
None of this impacts the capacity to coerce people because they are dissimilar to oneself or others. You just need to be honest about what you want to do, not try to call it "health care." Health is just a narrative you have to justify your desire to dominate others, which is a wholly natural desire. Just be honest about it.
I would be interested in having a conversation. This may not be the correct avenue to go about. But, I just started listening to the newer episode of Jordan Peterson. Realizing my childhood was a bit parallel in some ways. I have been processing some things over the past few year's and would find a conversation with you interesting and maybe revealing.
This is a very interesting conversation and I salute both voices for the initiative of creating a civilised dissenting dialogue.
I am not an expert on mental health (i.e. I am not officially trained as a mental health worker). I have a background as a social scientist and experience as a therapist.
What makes this conversation interesting to me is how it combines multiple scales and multidimensions when discussing the theme of mental health. It unpacks some of its core themes, showing their grain and depth but above all reveals the holographic nature of mental health - the crisis and convolutions around its multiple natures, biological, social, political, philosophical - all reflecting the larger civilisation development crisis.
The tension between different positions in this dialogue seem to represent the wanting to keep/establish boundaries and the recognition that the intersection between biology, social, economic and political systems is inevitable. This tension is to some degree necessary in this historical moment when are all reshuffling things…
In my view, for interesting progress to happen 2 things need to fall into place: 1) the recognition that science as a system of knowledge production and sense making is inherently a cultural phenomena. I find it surprising that at this point we can still conceive of “empirical facts” - of whatever nature - as exempt from a human subject embedded in context. So of course the practice of medicine and psychology is profoundly socially conditioned and cannot but be so. The exemptionalism that still lingers in medical science is epistemologically naive and sterile, both in theory and in praxis. 2) assuming the multidimensional aspect of mental health (biological, cultural, etc) more than putting our efforts in establish clear boundaries (or even worse, colonising territories from any side) we should do well in applying full creativity in establishing correlations between phenomena, assuming the full complexity of what mental health means. In so doing exploring the deep ground of these articulations: capitalism; trauma; fear; power; human evolution, etc.
Again, my thanks to both authors.
It is really, really simple, the problem is the University system selects for a credulous, schizoid personality type. I have never seen a University, but I have heard of them...
"Sounds, colors, heat and cold, according to modern philosophy are not qualities in objects, but perceptions in the mind. (Hume 1738: Bk III, part I, Sect. 1 [1911: 177]; Bk I, IV, IV [1911: 216])" (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/color/#ProCol)
Now, Hume says "perceptions in the mind," and I take it that this is fairly basic neuroscience: our perception of colour is wholly predicated of ocular and neurophysiology. So, when someone sees a red and green light as the same sort of yellowish colour (I know a chemist who saw that way, he had to lie to get his driver license...) this is not because they are "wrong" (mad, mentally ill) it is simply that they have a different physiology.
Now, we apply this to the physician. The sensation of illness or sickness is akin to colour. The weight of things, the volume of them, these are real and objective properties. So, for example, we might put physicians who perceive mental illness to exist into a brain scanning machine, and we go "oh, this is the aggregate scanning pattern produced after scanning psychiatrists, this is why they perceive mental illness to be a thing."
Of course, we do not do this. We put the mental patients into the brain scanning machines and go "oh, this is why they are mentally ill." Or whatever scanning machine, or experimental apparatus.
At the end of the day, the reference standard is not objective, like mass or weight, it is subjective, like colour. It is the same for all perception of illness or injury. The social issue of "agnosia" that is, lack of insight into one's condition, is really not a thing so much as a neurological difference. This is the issue, if you really take neurology seriously, it is not a lack of insight, it is simply a different physiology. Just as pathological states are reducible to physiology, so are non-pathological states. And indeed the distinction between the two is purely a physiological process, as is the division of sounds into words, etc. etc.
It is really not so difficult if you are not schizoid. But if you are...well...it is not your fault, hopefully Alma Mater takes care of you.
None of this impacts the capacity to coerce people because they are dissimilar to oneself or others. You just need to be honest about what you want to do, not try to call it "health care." Health is just a narrative you have to justify your desire to dominate others, which is a wholly natural desire. Just be honest about it.
I would be interested in having a conversation. This may not be the correct avenue to go about. But, I just started listening to the newer episode of Jordan Peterson. Realizing my childhood was a bit parallel in some ways. I have been processing some things over the past few year's and would find a conversation with you interesting and maybe revealing.