Multiculturalism

I think that multiculturalism, is in a lot of ways a good idea, but I also think that it has its limitations, for various reasons, and that some politicians, and very idealistic political people and groups, don’t understand this or admit to all these facts. Some people believe in complete or total multiculturalism, and that anyone should be able to live anywhere, and in any other country, without any laws and restrictions against this.

I can see why some people, want and desire total multiculturalism on principle - because we are all individuals and human beings regardless of race - but I also can’t think of any culture or society, where total multiculturalism in this way, actually works - other than in some communes - but most people who join communes, are very well-educated, middle-class people (like university students), and the vast majority of people are just not like that.

To have totally free and complete multiculturalism, it would take years and years of very hard social work, experience, and education, but most people don’t want to, or can’t be educated in this way, and some racism is biological and can’t be changed through education. Because of the reality of all of this, I think we do have to have some laws and restrictions on immigration, because otherwise, all that would happen, is that complete multiculturalism would just create a lot more racial conflict, and the very racist fascist political parties, would just gain more power.

So I agree that we have to have some immigration laws and restrictions, although what I don’t like, is the way the immigration legal system, makes isolated examples of people, using some racism, to do things like deny illegal immigrants social security money or jobs, and to force these isolated illegal immigrant individuals, back to their own country.

Still, this is the reality of the immigration legal system, and I alone cannot change that. I think the immigration system, should be more flexible and lax though, where illegal immigrant individuals - if they are nice, fairly moderate, and peaceful people - should be allowed to stay in this country, if they have partners here who they very much love, and need to live and be with, and if they are willing and able to study or work in some way.

The Personal, Social, and Psychological Nature of Depersonalisation

In the most basic and accurate description of depersonalisation, it basically means when individuals have feelings of unreality, and when they feel like they are not fully alive, or real persons, and social beings - and more importantly - when they don’t feel like they are real or complete human beings, but feel more like animals or things. Depersonalisation, also very basically means - and is in fact - a form of depression and low self-esteem, which can be accompanied by some or a lot of anxiety.

There are basically four aspects to depersonalisation: 1. A basic understanding of all the different types of accurate, and false things, that the term depersonalisation means or refers to. 2. The causes of depersonalisation. 3. An understanding of different types of persons, why some people experience depersonalisation more than others, and why some others don't experience it, and 4. An understanding of things like sexual, love-orientated, and erotic masochism, which are not depersonalisation, but which may involve some things which may appear similar to it to some others, and the way this gets overall falsely misunderstood and labelled as such.

I'll deal with these things in chronological order. Firstly, depersonalisation, is often assumed by others about the term, that it is a noun, and describing simply a thing (like simply a psychological thing, or simply a condition or disorder within individuals) - when if you look at the term carefully and closely - the term "depersonalisation" is actually an adjective, and is describing something which is being done to someone, through neglect, mistreatment, or abuse. Also, the fact that the term is "de-person-alisation", is only assuming that human beings are simply persons - or just individuals - and not also social beings. It is true, that depersonalisation is somewhat related to different types of persons or individuals, but it's also very much true, that the way people are treated by others socially and interpersonally, and these social influences, can also be a big factor in all of this.

Depersonalisation can be a terrible thing, and it is still not much recognised and acknowledged, by many psychiatrists, social workers, mental health professionals and some others, that a lot of people who experience this are very much suffering.

The solutions to depersonalisation, are therapeutic, social, and in some ways and sometimes the right psychiatric medication, can help up to a point - or for a while - if combined with other approaches, and with very accurate and unique understandings of all the complex realities, functions, and processes of it. Some depersonalisation, is not really a major problem, because there are psychological processes which can transform depersonalisation, into things like feeling more alive and complete again, and feeling loved, valued, and having better personal and social identification, personal and social support, and much better self-esteem.

Depersonalisation, is also related to mental and emotional experiences and perceptions, and physical sensory experiences and perceptions, and the way all these things influence each other and interact, both socially and psychologically. Depersonalisation, is also in some ways very much related, to the ways that some experiences and perceptions can be denied, distorted, fragmented and repressed by the self and others.

If people who experience and suffer from depersonalisation, are simply being socially integrated, and then just told to change their lives, then this approach and very limited and ignorant social model, is very inadequate, insufficient, and unsatisfactory. Social integration, and mere instruction on how people must change their lives - purely in terms of distraction and activities - need to be very much combined with a social and psychological understanding, integration, and real liberation, of things like the persons experiences and perceptions - in terms of both emotional, mental or intellectual, and physical love and stimulation - towards healing and recovery.

The view that depersonalisation, is basically a form of dissociation, to protect a person from the trauma of emotional pain, is a very common and predominant theory amongst many modern academics, therapists, and mental health professionals. Obviously, there is often some truth in this theory and view - but again - by itself, it is very over-simplistic and incomplete. Whether a person, who is suffering from negative depersonalisation, really understand this about themselves, or are simply conforming to this very simple, or incomplete predominant view and theory of others, is sometimes questionable.

Where and when, depersonalisation has a protective and survival factor in this way, against emotional trauma, the side-effects or symptoms of this, can still often outweigh, the function and feelings of being protected, and there are much better ways to deal with and heal emotional pain and trauma, and feel more genuinely or better protected, and both sufferers and many professionals, need to learn about all this and keep all their options open.

Depersonalisation, as well as being a psychological and biological condition, can also be a social role coerced or imposed upon people, by psychiatric, social work, and mental health professionals. In a similar kind of way, sufferers will sometimes adopt the theories, which create their social roles as depersonalisation sufferers, and that is why sufferers need to in some ways realise and challenge this, and why new knowledge, and social, personal, and therapeutic approaches, models, and treatments are very needed and required.

On The True Nature, and Social and Psychological Functions of Colleges, Universities, and their so-called Teachers and Students

I have read the vast majority, of the theories and so-called findings of academics, and the vast majority of what the vast majority write and say, about human psychology, society, and human nature, is full of myths, lies, and wildly inaccurate. It is also driven by a very sycophantic and submissive underlying desire and tendency, for most academics to very blindly obey and serve the main so-called mainstream, and very outdated and stunted cultural and political ideologies, and the views and theories which most academics dictate and believe in, are simply slight variations of the views of other academics.

Indeed, one old friend of mine, said that if you wanted to study sociology or psychology, in terms of an approach which is critical about the abuse, labelling, prejudice, and discrimination, against people diagnosed with so-called mental health problems, then you have to get very friendly and favourable, with certain teachers who teach this at university, and which is like the fagging system in public schools.

In terms of the kind of relatedness, class-hierarchy, and so-called relationships, between students and teachers at colleges and universities, it is very much a master-slave type relationship, where the students are only allowed to have their own findings, theories, and views, as an adherence and "choice" between different academic theories, views, and opinions - and if the students do really question anything, think for themselves, and have their own very genuine findings, theories, views, and opinions - they are seen as very bad students or trouble-makers, by the other students and teachers.

Strangely enough, anyone outside the college and university circus and theatre, who genuine knows much more and much better, than all of these academics and teachers put together, is seen by the students, not as their master, but as their slave. This is curious and interesting, because I find the idea of being the students’ very wise and knowledgeable slave in this way, both erotic, strangely complimentary, and very exciting. This also shows us and very much reveals, the way students have been very repressed, in terms of the power-relationships between them and their teachers and lecturers, and that they secretly have no real grovelling respect, for their so-called academic masters and teachers.

There are some very good academics about, like Irving Goffman, and especially Dave Harper, who is a psychology lecturer in an East End London university, but Dave is one in a billion, and are aren’t very many academics around like him. Whilst Dave does write some genuinely great and innovative psychology articles, he has some very reductionist and black and white opinions about all psychiatric medication, and even his overall views and findings are still very much incomplete, and in some ways very inaccurate. I will send this article to Dave Harper, and very politely ask him for his views and opinions about it.

The truth and whole social nature and psychology of academics, is that they are regarded and treated, as kinds of magical gurus and royalty, and insulated and secluded from the reality of human experiences and behaviours in actual society, and in this way they are given an overall undeserved privileged status and respect, for this magical knowledge and power, and for the fact that they are really being given very preferential treatment, for being very subservient and ignorant.

Mind Control, Ignorance, and Inequality of Individual Freedom

Many so-called Liberals and the Liberal Democrats, claim that they believe in a moderate, enlightened and educated, and free society and world, where everyone’s liberty and individual freedom is encouraged, defended, safeguarded, and protected. The so-called Liberals and Liberal Democrats, claim that they are a progressive political party, opposed to fascism and totalitarianism, and that they are in favour of dispelling ignorance, prejudice, inequality, and discrimination in society.

However, in actual fact and reality, none of these things which they claim, are in any way true about most of them, nor are these things which they claim and profess, the actual reality of the matter - whilst at the same time - I personally, am not anti-liberal or illiberal, in terms of some beliefs and views that I hold, and my overall very valid and fairly moderate, socialist, libertarian, and liberal beliefs, values, and principles.

I’ll address these criticisms I’ve stated in chronological order. The first claim, of the so-called Liberals and Liberal Democrats, is that they believe in an educated, enlightened society, in which ignorance, prejudice, very negative conformity, and discrimination, is both challenged and dispelled. The truth and the fact of the matter, is that most so-called Liberals - like so-called New Labour - get their most of their social and psychological theories and views, from the academic elites, but the vast majority of what the academic elites write and say about psychology, society, and human nature, are extremely ignorant, very false, and wildly inaccurate.

This intellectual blind obedience and faith, of the blind leading the blind, isn’t Liberalism or enlightenment, it is actually a form of extreme intellectual inaccuracy and stupidity, very negative conformism, and it is in actual fact a form of fascism and totalitarianism. What’s worse, many so-called Liberal professionals and people, then impose these very idiotic, very false, and wildly inaccurate social and psychological theories, onto individuals and people, socially and intellectually - bribing them - by saying that they are offering them help, pleasure, happiness, love, and support - when real support has to involve genuine intellectual innovation and freedom - and has to be at least to some extent unconditional, like unconditional love.

The truth is, they don’t love anyone, nor do they understand true love, and neither do they believe in real intellectual innovation, enlightenment, and freedom. What they actually believe in, is that "All animals are individually free, but that some animals are more individually free and equal than others".

Thus, the kind of society, that the so-called Liberals, and so-called New Labour (who in reality and truth don’t believe that socialism is at all progressive, and have hardly ever really progressed intellectually in any real understanding of socialism) want and believe in, is a very dull and ordinary, and very ignorant society, controlled and influenced by professional and academic lies, myths - and terrible prejudices and discrimination - about anyone who genuinely knows much more and much better, in terms of psychology, society, and human nature, and in terms of the deeper truths and realities of real and true love, which none of them have any true or real understanding of or about.

The main social and psychological theory, that the so-called Liberals and New Labour believe in - and which is like a form of extreme fundamentalism that they never question - is so-called liberal utilitarian reward theory. This theory and false God that they all bow down to and worship, claims that every behaviour and action, always has a selfish individual and social reward, including genuine love, mutual pleasure, and altruism - which again - none of them have any real understanding or appreciation of or about, practise, or really believe in.

The way they explain and impose this very ludicrous, false, and in fact very simple-minded psychological reward theory onto others - with pathetic and useless bribes, coercion, and force - is that all human actions, are very selfishly motivated, and always have a personal and social reward basis to them.

They do and say this, because whilst they have much more individual freedom and material things, than other less powerful, and much poorer people in society, they say that the less powerful, less equal, and less individually free people, have and get all the rewards for any of their actions and behaviours, whilst they also believe, claim, and say, that this theory - which they all very cowardly grovel to, bow down to and worship - doesn’t in any way apply to them, and that they don’t have any selfish rewards for their extreme ignorance, very loveless, and very unequal, unfree, and very selfish beliefs, so-called values, actions, and behaviours.

Thus, along with the very valid and genuine Liberal value and principle - which they state and purport, and don’t in any way apply to themselves - of the hypocrisy of those who protest too much, they are applying this selfish reward theory and explanation to others, as an extreme form of psychological and social projection, of their own characteristics, by criticising and condemning things such as very selfish rewards about others, which in actual fact apply much more and overall to them as individuals, and as social, political, and human beings.

Love and Pleasure, Money, Exploitation, and Sharing

The whole issue, of the economic independence of men and women, love and desire, and economic exploitation, is a somewhat complex one, which needs to be clarified and explained, and which is what I will do in this article.

Two old friends of mine - who I no longer have anything to do with - had some very misogynist, distorted, and very inaccurate views about women, and they then wondered why women didn’t really want anything to do with them.

Along with these very simple-minded and distorted views, these two old friends had about women, they also had an admiration for Hitler and the Nazis, along with some extreme anti-Semitism (even though they described themselves as socialists), and the fact that they eventually tried to bully me, and impose all these views on me by shouting me down, was the main reason why I stopped seeing them.

These two old friends of mine, said that all women were just into emotional and physical sensations (rather than intellect and principles), that all women lied about the fact that they loved men, and were just simply manipulative, cruel, and deceitful in that way, that all women just used men for sex which was all women really desired and wanted, and that all women really cared about and loved was money.

On the other hand, these two old friends were OK towards women socially, and I think they really still love and respect women, but they are in some ways very ignorant, and know no better. They also feel hurt, from being rejected in the past by some women, and they are not very good at understanding human psychology and emotions. Whilst I hate these two old friends’ very negative and distorted views about women and the Jews, I think a lot of this was just their macho boasting and hard-talk - which they didn’t really mean - and in some other ways I still love them, because they do also have some very good human qualities and characteristics - they have nothing much in their lives but books and classical music - and they have had some other hardships and tragedies in their lives, which have very badly affected them.

These two old friends, may have had some "bad experiences", with some women in the past, which they have very much misperceived, not really understood, and which has overall very much stereotyped their views of all women - and the fact they often see prostitutes for sex - might have again made them misperceive this, not really understand it, and led to them having these very inaccurate, very hypocritical, and very stereotypical views about prostitutes, and about other women in general.

Whilst it may be argued, that prostitutes exploit men for love and sex, so do some other women in society who are not prostitutes, and the fact is, that many men also get a kick, and in some ways enjoy letting women exploit them economically for love and/or sex, but which is also related to the issues of generosity and sharing.

Of course, many women pay their way in society, and do not exploit men financially for love and sex, but then again, if we all just simply paid our way and were purely economically independent as individuals, it would be a very selfish, pleasureless, and loveless society and world, and I don’t believe that human beings, society, and the world is really simply just like that.

If we were to be very critical and rejecting, of all aspects of so-called financial exploitation for love and pleasure (because some people say that all love and sex should be completely free), then we may as well reject the entire capitalist system, but which would be foolish to do so, in that sweeping or total way. Everyone pays money, for products in society, such as food, clothes, and other entertainment and leisure activities and material things - including things like music and art which give us feelings of beauty and love - and so on that level and in that regard, there’s not much difference in paying money for love and sex, as in one way or another, most people do this in some shape or form anyway - and again - it is very much connected and related to the issues of wider love, desire, intentions and expectations, and sharing.

Whilst there is undoubtedly, such a thing as economic exploitation, men will sometimes exchange money for love and/or sex, because they want to show their generosity and sharing - although obviously sharing is to a great extent a mutual or two-way thing - but these men are making a statement about this, and want some kind of equal or related response or return from women, whilst at the same time, we should all understand and respect the fact, that the economic independence of men and women, are important and valid too.

Joan of Arc The Messenger

I like watching films because one can get a more artistic and different perspectives on different subject matters, and music also gives me a better understanding of things in terms of understanding changing and creating forms. The film Joan of Arc The Messenger goes into Joan of Arc's life and hearing voices experiences, and it enlightened me on some aspects of hearing voices. The first and last parts of the film went into her hearing voices experiences, with the first part enlightening me on childhood experiences of hearing voices, and the latter part making me aware of medical psychiatric interpretations in the film.

In addressing the issue of hearing voices, the beginning of the film looked at some aspects of imagination and heightened senses, mysticism and religious experience, and then the effects and responses stemming from very painful and traumatic events - because according to the film, Joan of Arc witnessed her sister being intruded upon, killed, and then defiled by an invading English soldier, and which was supposedly a strong factor on her wanting to later take revenge on the English.

The first part of the film suggested to me that willingly and knowingly self-created voices may be a part of the natural process of the heightened senses of childhood driven by the free and creative imagination, but that a very traumatic event or events may disrupt or reverse this process.

When this process is reversed, the heightened senses take over the imaginative mastery and result in an overwhelming or traumatic perceptual experience, which then absorbs itself intrusively into the imagination or drives it. This is what the film shows very well, and what it to be most praised for. (There are lots of people around - including film writers, artists, and directors - who know a lot more about hearing voices and other mental health problems than most psychiatrists and professionals do).

So when the natural heightened sense of perception and awareness is dulled, stunted, repressed, or blocked, then the natural process of imagination and heightened senses becomes reversed, intrusive, fragmentary (hallucinatory), and negative, and that this dulling or blocking of those heightened senses occurs before any such ‘splitting’ or perceptual fragmentation (hallucination) occurs.

However, there is still one aspect of the beginning of the film I disagree with in its interpretation of hearing voices, and that is the matter of supposedly initially intrusive voices. The first part of the film implies that as a child Joan of Arc heard intrusive but positive voices, although we can’t even assume at that age that her voices were initially intrusive (or as ‘startling’ as described by the Romme and Escher model as the initial ‘startling phase’), because she may have well deliberately created her voices to begin with.

This is very key for me, because I believe that all voices were deliberately created or constructed during childhood, but that we forget about these origins in adult life, and to that extent we are all potential voices hearers if we suffer from abuse or very traumatic events.

The first part of the film showed how Joan of Arc organised and disorganised her voices, and the middle part of the film portrayed her voices as more rationalised and organised, when this might not have been the case because her free voices experiences were disrupted and reversed after the traumatic event of seeing her sister killed (I use the term free voices to mean those which are willingly and knowingly self-created). The ending of the film after her unfair trial and maltreatment, showed her voices to be negative, intrusive, aggressively cross-questioning, tormenting and undermining.

The middle part of the film were the battle scenes where her voices appear to be more structured in some way, and the third part of the film (about her unfair trial and execution) dealt with her hearing voices experiences very much in terms of the Freudian/superego/conscience and cognitive-behavioural professional approach to voices, and which I think is still very much psychiatric, and still very much a part of the medical model, as the medical approach denotes the causes of hearing voices as coming from just inside the person, and not (also) from environmental, external, and objective life events and experiences. In reality, hearing voices are caused by a certain combination of internal imaginative processes and external sensory perception, and to suggest otherwise is to deny a persons sensory and life-experiences.

As a character in the film, Joan of Arc came across as little bit like Marilyn Monroe (as it is more or less a Hollywood film), but the character portrayal captured the unease and mental distress of the real character, as well as her militaristic fanaticism, and her genuine courage for rebellion against tyrannical religious and state authority. The character was played quite well on the whole, but the whole film did tend to stereotype the soldiers and the women in it.

I lent the film to a friend who has just returned it, and he said he thought it was racist about the English, portraying the English as all scoundrels, rapists, and barbarians. Other than that, he didn't comment on it except to question whether the real Joan of Arc really had blond hair, because he said that she was more than likely dark-haired if she was Celtic.

According to the film, Joan of Arc did have negative voices during her mistreatment and trial which supposedly tormented her about the causes of her voices, and about her militaristic fanaticism, and these negative voices were presented in the form of a visual and audio hallucination of an angel in her prison cell (played by Dustin Hoffman) and which was called 'her conscience' in the credits. Other than that, her voices were supposedly positive and intrusive, although what was positive for her wasn’t always what was positive for others.

It could be accurate that Joan of Arc had negative voices at the stage when she was being cross-questioned - not by psychiatrists - but by their processors the religious authorities, and it went into the aspect of her voices which were intrusive, implying that originally she didn't have negative voices, but had positive but intrusive voices.

Whether all intrusive voices are regarded as negative I'm not sure (according to Romme and Escher model they aren't necessarily negative, and you can have intrusive voices which are positive), but all intrusive voices would be regarded as negative by my high standards on the matter, and only the ones that are deliberately and consciousness self-created (or free voices) are somewhat positive.

So her voices were intrusive most of the time, and therefore interpreted as positive and "messengers" for her, but most of these intrusive voices (as far as we know) were positive for her, except (according to the film) up until her maltreatment and trial when the voices became aggressively cross-questioning, undermining, and tormenting.

A Critique and Appraisal of R. D. Laing’s Theory of Schizophrenia and Madness

Some years ago, I gave up reading as an interest and hobby, because I wanted to focus more on my own experiences, findings, thoughts, and observations, and concentrate on my own writing, and which is as good as, or even in some ways far better, than most written material on mental health today, by big authors and academics.

Just before I gave up reading entirely as a hobby and interest, I read four of R. D Laing’s books, first starting with The Divided Self, which my aunt gave me an old copy of when I was 15, although I didn’t read it until five years later, because at the age of 15, I couldn’t relate to it.

R. D. Laing was a sort of radical psychiatrist in the late 1950s, 60s, and 70s, who basically said that madness was caused by what he called dysfunctional - meaning chaotic, disorderly, or disturbed - communication in the family, by parents towards children. At first I was taken in by his findings and theories, and accepted most of what he said, but now I have my own experiences, findings, observations, knowledge, and hindsight, and I now find myself rejecting most of Laing’s basic theories on so-called Schizophrenia and madness.

Whilst I do accept that behaviours in familles can cause madness, this happens when there is just plain child abuse, involving violence and the threat of violence, dysfunctional or not in communication. Also, I see madness being created if there is verbal, mental, and emotional suppression, but I don’t see dysfunctional communication in general as causing madness. Indeed, some dysfunctional communication keeps many couples or friends together, and is part of wit, creativity, and play, whilst it’s also very important to have very clear and attentive communication.

But this is one problem I have with Laing’s views on this point, because dysfunctional conversation does not cause madness, it is indeed a solution for a form of so-called madness, such as when people think or speak incoherently, to blot out the rational control of hearing negative and intrusive voices, or when they respond to the some of the illogical everyday conversations around them. Dysfunctional communication by itself, can and does sometimes create mental health problems, or annoyance and stress, especially if there is also some social control or repression,. but these are minor mental health problems, which most people have in some way, and not anything to do with madness as such at all.

There’s no doubt that Laing was a very good writer, who wrote somewhat creatively, and who was somewhat radical and innovative, and related very well and creativity towards psychiatric diagnosed-people, but I have some fundamental disagreements with his findings and theories, on so-called Schizophrenia and madness. I have also since reading Laing, come up with my own findings, on things like seeming incoherent speech, and psychotic breakdown, preferring to look rather at a wider context and perspective, finer details, and looking at how the details relate to the whole, of many different contexts, and focusing more on the here and now.

That is not to say, that I don’t believe that mental health problems, can be caused by bad family upbringing from the past, because I believe that they can if children or adults are abused, and that post traumatic stress can be created by that, but I wanted to move on from Laing’s theories and findings, think for myself, and write about my own findings, experiences, and observations.

One thing I would like to comment on, is that during the early 1990s, it was very common and popular amongst medical doctors, and those of a conservative political persuasion, to believe that divorced parents, were a cause of Schizophrenia in their child or children. This was a socially dogmatic view on the Right-wing of politics, when usually social dogmas with falsity, untruths, and half-truths, usually come from the Left of politics. At the time, I very much disagreed with this theory of divorce causing Schizophrenia, because I thought that it was based upon a very outdated and idealistic view of the family, which refused to move on and embrace the extended family, and because it saw the individual as bonded to his family in identity, and not having or creating his own social and personal identity. In my own case, my mum and dad had to separate and divorce, because they were just not suited to be with each other in many ways, and there was a very bad, and in some ways, dangerous and threatening behaviours involved from my mum towards my dad, and the abuse that I suffered as a consequence of all of this, was intolerable, and very detrimental to my physical safety and mental health.

I’m not saying that the separation of divorce doesn’t cause any mental health problems, because I also believe that it can, but living in a situation of conflict, violence, and abuse, would have been much worse, and having step-parents can be just as therapeutic, loving, and supportive, but the Right wing have or had a very blinkered and narrow-minded view about this. Having step-parents, as well as parents, can be much better, and have many different advantages.

The other thing I would say about Laing’s findings, is that they can be hegemonised, absorbed, and used by mental health professionals, with coercion and state power, but this is a total perversion of Laing’s spirit, and his message of equality, freedom, and choice. Laing’s findings and theories on the family and madness, are now sometimes used by some mental health professionals, to impose family therapy upon individuals, where individuals are coerced or forced to interact with their families, who are often abusing or mistreating them in some way.

The individual is then sometimes objectified and observed, by social workers and other mental health professionals, watching and pontificating about them behind a one-way screen. Such so-called family therapy, when social workers were terrorising me with the Police, was tried to be forced upon me, but I refused to co-operate with such oppression, to the point where I had to hit my dad because he was hounding me to participate in it. I regret to this day that I hit him, and I screamed at him "I am not a family, I am an individual!".

　

There is a view that some radical feminists have about Laing, that he had a problem with his mother, because she was cold and cruel to him as a child, and so therefore he blamed all mothers for madness and was a misogynist. Such views about Laing, are based upon ideological ignorance, jealousy, misandry (hatred of men), and a basic misunderstanding of Laing’s work and the facts. Laing actually supported and defended many of his female patients, who were victims of abusive fathers, and in his case studies of madness and the family, he is not in any way biased against mothers. On the contrary, in one part, in one of his books, he actually endorses women oppressing men, if they have been oppressed by other men, and it is here on the gender issue that I think Laing lacked morality and ethics.

Laing very much defended women who were abused as children or adults, and in his case studies of families causing madness, did not one-sidedly blame mothers. He did speak out against his own mother's abuse towards him as a child, and I think that he was right to do that. I have done this about my own mother, but I have also understood what influenced and motivated her to abuse me, and forgiven her, not least because she has changed and loves me immensely, and I love her immensely too.

Another major criticism about Laing, is that the way Laing is used by mental health services is anti-family, and that this is extreme and a great shame, because I don't believe that Laing himself was anti-family. To some extent, this attitude of the mental health/social workers and professionals, is due to the fact that they see psychiatric-diagnosed people as children, in order to take away our rights as adults, and they also see their role as our parents and even our bosses. The fact is, they do use Laing to prise people away from their families, but then they terrorise and totally neglect psychiatric-diagnosed people without any support, and give us the ultimatum and double-bind (no-win situation) of choosing between two sets of parental abusers - the mental health/social workers and professionals on the one hand - and the actual and real families on the other. This is because the mental health workers and professionals, don't really want to be our carers or parents, and they have very little nurturing skills towards psychiatric-diagnosed people, but instead they want to be controllers and authoritarian figures in a Police state. In a way, they see us as their slaves and property, and think that it's their job to abuse us, but that it's wrong for our real parents to do so.

Such a double-bind (no-win situation) in the identity and mind, with being trapped between these conflicting pressures, of abusive powers of the social, psychiatric, and mental health authorities on the one hand, and abusive parents on the other, can in itself create a split in the identity and mind of the psychiatric-diagnosed person, but there is absolutely no recognition, realisation, or responsibility of the reality of this, by the social workers, psychiatrists, and mental health professionals.

It is the forcing of people from their families which is the bad thing. If a person wants to be somewhat autonomous from their family by choice, if they are being abused or mistreated by their families, or if they want to create and raise a family of their own, or find their independence and new role in society, then that is in a way fine, but forcing them away from the family, and in a situation where they have no more connection or relationship to it, and no other support, is a very bad and detrimental thing, for all the reasons I have given.

The main objection I have to one of Laing’s main theories on so-called Schizophrenia, is the view he had that Schizophrenics hold back and isolate themselves from others. This is simply not true, except in cases where individuals are marginalised or terrorised, or can’t fit into very conservative environments. In a way, saying that we hold back from others, is another way of saying that we are selfish, and yet psychiatrists and social workers are the real parasites, who earn lots of money from poor and vulnerable people’s problems in daily living. They don't want us to be altruistic, they want hierarchies of carers, and patients who are treated as if we have no valid or human thoughts and feelings.

The other thing Laing draws reference to, is that supposedly a split occurs in the Schizophrenic’s identity and mind, and a false self is created which takes over or becomes autonomous. Such Cartesian Dualism ii completely oversimplified when understanding human beings. Firstly, psychiatric diagnosed people, have more elasticity and flexibility to be different selves than other people, who are more intact, rigid, and less adaptable. Secondly, a false self, may just be a feminine side to a man, or a masculine side to a woman, which the person might be trying to separate, form a relationship or love with in some way, and then integrate the two, in order to create a much more balanced or holistic human being. All of this is beyond the training and understanding of psychiatrists and social workers though, who like robots, only believe what is written in their text books.

Then there is the whole matter of which Laing called ‘ontological insecurity’, where a person is supposedly alienated from their bodies, other people, and the world, and feels naturally at unease and in despair in the world. Ontological insecurity is actually what most people experience. It’s only those people who try to break out of that, who get labelled as ontologically insecure and insane. . .

To end on a positive note about Laing, from reading Laing’s books, I learnt from him that there are three basic levels to communication and relatedness. The first one, is understanding and finding common ground, or what most people call a consensus. The second level, is agreeing to differ. The third level, when the other two things can’t be achieved, are parting ways.

Extremists don’t follow this formula though, as they practise something Laing called mergence when they form a group or collective, which suppresses their differences and individual identity and freedom. From seeing some liberal counsellors, I also learnt that people can attack or criticise something in others, part of which they are denying in themselves. This doesn’t hold for social and material conditions though, but is a good thing to be reminded of. These counsellors also pointed out about people who protest too much, that in fact they are projecting their own characteristics and attributes onto others.

Paranoia, the Creative Dialectical Method, and Recovery

I present here, from my own experiences, observations, findings, and ideas, and from using paranoia and recovery as an example in this article, the Creative Dialectical Method. This method uses creativity to unite opposing factors, in order to create a synthesis and a new thesis, and by integrating both the subjective and objective experiences of the person, with regard and respect for the person’s privacy and confidentiality.

I don’t claim to have invented this method or approach completely, as it has been used by others up to a point, such as The Hearing Voices Network, but I have built upon that foundation of new knowledge, and added my own contributions to it. The Creative Dialectical Method may not be suitable for everyone, but it does have some overall value and use, for people diagnosed with mental health problems, and it very much describes my own mind, and my own way of thinking, feeling, and healing.

Certain things can induce paranoia deliberately, and then shun the responses, by covering up, denying, or hiding the root cause of it, and then labelling it as mental illness. Paranoia is caused by many factors, but largely by others distorting or misrepresenting reality, usually as part of some bullying, mistreatment, or abuse. Abusers set up different-versions-of-reality, that the person who has been bullied, mistreated, or abused, wanted or deserved the abuse, and this can make the person feel that they are under further attack from others. The way that abusers tell their victims that they are very bad people, can be internalised and projected onto others, in that others are seen as very bad, the way that the person themselves was seen and treated in that way.

Not all paranoia should be prevented, as some paranoia is a good thing. It’s a good thing, if it is something which is wary of violence and extremism, because it’s about protection, care, and concern for ones self and others. It’s also a good thing if there is a process to it, of eventually integrating the facts, with the concerns of ones own and others well-being and welfare. Sometimes the end-factor in this process, can be a political or social critique, or asserting and expressing one’s feelings and thoughts with others, on a more personal or interpersonal level. This is a process of creativity and some recovery, and there are many different ways to achieve this, but it involves flexibility, ordering, structuring, and some randomness, and fluidity with the facts, and both rational and imaginative thinking.

Very rarely, paranoia can lead to the paranoid person threatening or committing violence, but on the whole, paranoid psychiatric-diagnosed people, are not a threat or violent in any way. The so-called sane fear of other people’s paranoia, depends on which way you look at it. So-called sane people are sometimes frightened, that psychiatric-diagnosed people will become arbitrary, irrational, and that some anarchy and violence will resort from this. Some psychiatric diagnosed people, see sane society, and psychiatry as abusive, violent, and arbitrary in its labelling and bad treatment. The paranoid person, fears that harm or violence will be done to them, and sometimes acts in terms of avoidance, or what they see as self-defence.

It may not be a good idea, to label people as paranoid in the first place, although I appreciate that psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals, have to label people up to a point, in order to assess, diagnose, and treat them. I am critical and concerned, about the way we treat people who are labelled as paranoid though. I think we need to get some kind of balance between relating to them, and in a way believing what they say, whilst at the same time, looking for other causes and reasons, why they believe that others, or strange forces, are out to harm them, if this is not always or overall the case. What isn’t helpful, is to militate against the person’s so-called paranoid delusions, by just telling them that it isn’t true, and that they are simply mad, paranoid, and deluded.

This is the crux of the matter here, that we relate to the person’s concerns and fears, with our own experiences, observations, or examples of that, even though their fears may be based upon some false assumptions. This humanises the paranoid person’s fears and concerns, and does not polarise their fears and concerns, as being totally different or opposed to the fears and concerns of people in general. This can involve a process, of not rejecting or denying the paranoid delusions, but of working through their wider meanings, and integrating them with a more rational way of thinking. This is a dialectical process, that leads to more rational thinking, knowledge, and understanding, whilst at the same time, it does not try to totally separate the opposing factors, of delusion and rational reality, but seeks instead to create some kind of synthesis and new thesis.

When I have been deluded, in the throes of a mental breakdown, in psychiatric hospital in the past, the psychiatrists who first assessed me, have acted as if they believed me, and related towards me likewise, and which made me feel a whole lot better, that someone else believed me, or could at least relate in some way to what I was experiencing, believing, and saying. This also helped the whole process, of integrating my so-called delusions with a more rational way of thinking, although after I was first assessed in psychiatric hospital, I found that the further psychiatric, routine, assessments, did not aid or help this process, as the psychiatrist set out to deny, invalidate, and suppress my experiences of my so-called delusions completely, with high dosage psychiatric medication, and with negative remarks and criticisms.

I am not totally anti psychiatric medication, because it has helped me when I have been very unwell in the past, and in small doses I have found it beneficial, towards some kind of wellness or recovery, but I am critical, of using psychiatric medication to suppress the persons experiences, of things like hearing voices completely, because we have to work through their wider meanings, and work towards a creative, integrative, dialectical, and holistic recovery.

Relationshipism

Relationshipism, is a term I have invented and coined, meaning any attitude, theory, or ideology, which devalues or denies people relationships, their relationship experiences and/or potential, or any dogma or theory which devalues people because they are single, or which deems people or individuals as incapable of having relationships.

The American writer and critic of psychiatry, Peter Breggin, in his lecture The Myth of Schizophrenia and Genetics, says that some psychiatrists have a genetics theory about diagnosed mental illness, which says that because of the genetics of diagnosed schizophrenics, diagnosed schizophrenics are incapable of relating to others, finding partners, and reproducing. Peter Breggin says that these psychiatrists, pick on the most oppressed and socially isolated individuals, in order to back up their genetics theories, and that people are likely to be without partners, because of problems relating to how they have been treated by others, and that diagnosed schizophrenia is caused by the state of society and the environment.

There is a more political aspect to relationshipism, when and where society may measure relationship love and potential, purely or overall in terms of money, class, or social status. I’m not arguing that some competition - which is part of most relationships - is in itself overall relationshipist, although if a person was consistently cheated on by their partner, or had their partners taken away from them by the State, then I think it would be commonly be considered that this is a form of relationshipism.

There are many positive and negative aspects to being single, and some people who have been abused or very controlled in the past, may find some positive liberation in being single for a while, with the positive aspects of personal freedom and finding their true selves. On the other hand, single people, can also be without love, intimacy, and relationship companionship, finding themselves lonely and cut-off from others, or from who they really are individually and socially.

One other aspect of relationshipism, is to devalue single people or people with diagnosed mental health problems, as incapable of having relationships, in order to superiorise the relationships of other groups or classes in society as much better, and to deny or mystify the problems sometimes within all relationships.

At one time, black people were regarded as being incapable of having relationships, because they were very falsely labelled and considered by many white people, as being primitive and insensitive, and as being incapable of making moral decisions about their own relationships.

The repression and control, by the ruling or more wealthier and powerful classes, to dictate to and instruct poorer and less powerful people, on relationship matters and sexual morality, all happened during a time, when most relationships were in turmoil, because of the repression of female sexuality - related to the social and economic inequality between men and women - and when domestic violence and abuse was then legitimised by the rich and powerful.

No one should be devalued because they are single, nor because they may find it hard to find the right or suitable sexual-love partners, and are socially marginalised and discriminated against. If one group or class of people, are saying that they are superior to others, in terms of individual or relationship potential, then this is again relationshipism, and which like racism, classism, and sexism, puts one group or class of people over and above another, in order to deny and mystify the nature of all human love relationships.

Gender and Spirituality

I sometimes wonder, whether human and individual gender (feminine and/or masculine so-called character traits or qualities), are intrinsic things of the real body, genetic make-up, mind, personality, and so-called spirit, or whether these things are all learnt socially, and culturally, as most sociologists tends to state.

I asked my mum’s partner, Bill, about this, and in his views based upon his knowledge of spiritualism, he said that the real person, or spirit, doesn’t have a gender, because he said that the real person was just spirit, and which was just pure energy and light. Most animals, or dogs in particular (which I was thinking of as an example on this), don’t really have a gender, or gender characteristics as such (although some people do say that male and female dogs have some gender-type differences), and so therefore, gender, seems a very human thing to me.

I sometimes use a chat room, on the Internet, and some of the names, or nicks, of the chat members or participants, are genderless names like boaty or lucky. Sometimes, with these names, I can still tell whether the person chatting is a male or female, by what they say and how they say it, but other times I can’t really tell the difference.

I think that in some ways, gender IS a part of the real person, or so-called spirit, and in some ways it isn’t, as we are all in some ways a mixture of feminine and masculine, and in some other ways I think we are just human, or like animals, or pure spirits, and genderless. Mostly though, I do think that our real selves, are our gender qualities and characteristics, and that this can also tell us more about psychology and spirituality.