PDA

View Full Version : Robin Williams dead.....sad!



vossy7
12-08-2014, 05:11
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28749702

Dead poet's society my favorite!

natlee
12-08-2014, 07:32
:( :( :(

Benedikt
12-08-2014, 07:45
Dead poet's society my favorite![/QUOTE]



to take this as a solution to end it all. RIP. one of the better actors...

rusmeister
12-08-2014, 08:23
Williams influenced my teaching style; I'll always be grateful for that.

But we affect those around us by our choices. Like divorce, suicide generally affects far more than just the individual(s) involved. It impacts everybody that was counting on you to stay faithful, to love or to life, even when it gets hard.

Suicide is driven by illness of the soul, a big "f-u" to the rest of the world, an insult, intended or not, to everyone who chooses to live. It throws the gift of life back in the face of the Giver. It says that gift is worthless, no matter if the suicide consciously thinks these things or not.

.

okiey
12-08-2014, 09:33
One of my earliest memories of TV is watching Mork and Mindy.

RIP

Remington
12-08-2014, 10:15
One of my earliest memories of TV is watching Mork and Mindy.

RIP

That one and "Good Morning, Vietnam"

FatAndy
12-08-2014, 10:25
Fcuk... the guy was really great. RIP. :(

MickeyTong
12-08-2014, 13:10
Robin Williams - Weapons Of Self Destruction - YouTube

rusmeister
12-08-2014, 15:24
Fcuk... the guy was really great. RIP. :(

FTR, Andy, I'm not speaking to the tragedy of his death - which it certainly is; the question is whether we should treat it like an accident - which is how most people treat suicide in our time - or like murder.
Does a person, great or otherwise, have some intrinsic right to murder oneself?
(Obviously, I think not, but I suspect a lot of people now do.)

And I'm sure Mickey could say a hundred things about spiritually ill people - and I would not contend a lot of what he would say - in those cases of agreement I would point out only that it is, in the case of a successful suicide, a fatal illness, an epidemic, like Ebola, only swifter, which we (in my opinion) indifferently tolerate among ourselves.

Even the Protestant traditions I grew up with and around, the normal thing to say is "Rest in peace". But unless we believe the person is actually resting, a state which, at some point, would end with the person restored, what good is there in saying it? I like how the Orthodox say it in English - "Memory eternal!", which we believe can only be maintained in God, as all humans, and human memory, passes and ends, and once it ends, it is no more. Personally, I like the coincidence in English of reading the words of the thief on the cross, "Remember me in Thy Kingdom" as "re-member", to once again put the person together again*, to do to Humpty Dumpty what all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't do. And that is what the hope beyond death is about for Christians, who believe in the eternal value of the individual personality, of having the individual completely restored.

The main condition of eternal happiness is repentance, of being sorry for what you did that was wrong, that actually ruined things, and determine to change that, to come to hate what you once thought was OK. The trouble with suicide is that it renders repentance in this life impossible, and that's not unimportant if it matters what eternal vector you finish your life on.



*It would be absurd for those words to mean only "Think about me in a past tense!" One could picture Christ walking in heaven, talking to an angel, saying "Do you remember Dismas, the guy on the cross? Nice fellow, he was." or something like that.

rusmeister
12-08-2014, 15:54
Robin Williams - Weapons Of Self Destruction - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiCxqbT2Ru8)

I watched almost a half an hour of the video, thanks!
But at a certain point it got too repetitive and simplistic for me. And for me, celebrating his life while ignoring the fact that his suicide was most certainly not a celebration of his life, but a vomiting at our celebratory attitude is something I can't do.

AstarD
12-08-2014, 15:56
Rus, have you been diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder? Or Aspergers?

vossy7
12-08-2014, 16:52
Look everybody ,I am sure many of us have been so low at sometime in our lives where we thought of ending it all but thankfully we are all here to post about the sad loss of RW. It must be such a fine balance of thinking "s}#% I' m going to do this " against "no freaking way I love my family too much"........the sad part is that, I am sure ,in most cases it is a cry for help to be found before they pass away.........we will never know .....sadly!

rusmeister
12-08-2014, 16:53
Rus, have you been diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder? Or Aspergers?

Well, I was able to stick out about half an hour of the relentless profanity, indecency and political plugs in Mick's video, so maybe. :)

How about you? What mental illnesses have you been diagnosed with? Are such questions relevant to what is true about the nature of suicide? Or do these considerations just make you uncomfortable? If so, why?

AstarD
12-08-2014, 16:56
I just wondered based on your persistence and seeming obsession.

FatAndy
12-08-2014, 16:56
Does a person, great or otherwise, have some intrinsic right to murder oneself?
It's the hard question, Rus. My understanding is - if the person has no relatives and/or friends - I think yes, it is possible.

MickeyTong
12-08-2014, 17:40
And I'm sure Mickey could say a hundred things about spiritually ill people - and I would not contend a lot of what he would say - in those cases of agreement I would point out only that it is, in the case of a successful suicide, a fatal illness, an epidemic, like Ebola, only swifter, which we (in my opinion) indifferently tolerate among ourselves.



Well, Rus....."speak of the devil and he'll turn up".....taunt you with his presence, and make you wait for his comments till tomorrow :devilish:

Uncle Wally
12-08-2014, 22:03
This just in, Robin Williams dies. Now to international news, the country of Bolivia expects an economic down turn for the coming year.

rusmeister
12-08-2014, 22:03
It's the hard question, Rus. My understanding is - if the person has no relatives and/or friends - I think yes, it is possible.

So, you have a right to murder yourself unless/until you make a friend or have a family member.

Doesn't seem like the consideration of a coherent (thought-through) philosophy.

Not to put you down, but that's why these questions of "what is the nature of man?" and "what is his purpose in life?" are so important, questions that affect everything, and are not merely one of many subjects, but THE subject that determines all other subjects. (That's why it would be illogical to try to limit philosophy to one little sub-forum. It'd be like trying to limit oxygen to the chemistry lab.)

Uncle Wally
12-08-2014, 22:08
So, you have a right to murder yourself unless/until you make a friend or have a family member.

Doesn't seem like the consideration of a coherent (thought-through) philosophy.

Not to put you down, but that's why these questions of "what is the nature of man?" and "what is his purpose in life?" are so important, questions that affect everything, and are not merely one of many subjects, but THE subject that determines all other subjects. (That's why it would be illogical to try to limit philosophy to one little sub-forum. It'd be like trying to limit oxygen to the chemistry lab.)



Heard any good jokes lately?

Alan65
12-08-2014, 22:41
So, you have a right to murder yourself unless/until you make a friend or have a family member.

Doesn't seem like the consideration of a coherent (thought-through) philosophy.

Not to put you down, but that's why these questions of "what is the nature of man?" and "what is his purpose in life?" are so important, questions that affect everything, and are not merely one of many subjects, but THE subject that determines all other subjects. (That's why it would be illogical to try to limit philosophy to one little sub-forum. It'd be like trying to limit oxygen to the chemistry lab.)

Hey Rus...ever had a best mate kill himself.

.

Uncle Wally
12-08-2014, 23:42
Hey Rus...ever had a best mate kill himself.

.


Oh god!

Wait Rus no I didn't mean that!


Alan65 did you ever have a mate? Male or female.

vossy7
13-08-2014, 05:15
Well, Rus....."speak of the devil and he'll turn up".....taunt you with his presence, and make you wait for his comments till tomorrow :devilish:

Did you hear about the the dyslexic devil worshiper who sold his soul to Santa!

Fantastika
13-08-2014, 06:37
I never could stand Robin Williams. He just struck me as totally "weird". His movies were not enjoyable because, as an actor, he was weird. I can't explain it. No, there is no other film star, male or female, which invokes such nausea in me. Whenever I see "Robin Williams" I never watch the movie.

At first I thought he was on amphetamines, but then I got the idea that his "morality" or his concept of Right and Wrong, was totally alien to anything I ever knew as a human being.

Funny? To me he was as funny as a rubber crutch. He seemed to me to be an arrogant person who thinks he not only has a superior and advanced intellect, but also an "evolved" sense of humor, that the rest of us should be enamoured of him.

As one of the cadre of hardcore Hollywood Democrat Leftist fringe, he is now enjoying "great hero" status in the Western media. Similar to the way in the USSR, certain people were accredited "Hero of the Revolution" and their biographies were "adjusted" to reflect their greatness and triumphs.

Fantastika
13-08-2014, 06:45
So, you have a right to murder yourself unless/until you make a friend or have a family member.

Doesn't seem like the consideration of a coherent (thought-through) philosophy.

Not to put you down, but that's why these questions of "what is the nature of man?" and "what is his purpose in life?" are so important, questions that affect everything, and are not merely one of many subjects, but THE subject that determines all other subjects.

Well, where is Russian_lad to agree with you?

He already admitted his guiding principle is "survival." Suicide is not very "survival-friendly."

TolkoRaz
13-08-2014, 07:58
On the flight yesterday, 2 of the 15 recently released films starred Robin Williams. In tribute I watched 'The angriest Man in Brooklyn' which was about a man who is told that he has 90 minutes to live before he dies. So, he sets about finding the people he had wronged throughout his life.

Ironically, the first words he utters in the film were, 'I am happy!'

A sad loss for his family and those whom he entertained over many years.

rusmeister
13-08-2014, 08:48
Hey Rus...ever had a best mate kill himself.

.

Hey, Alan... Ever give birth to a baby yourself? Ever been a Negro paraplegic?

One would think the best person to speak about suicide is the person who has successfully done it. Only, obviously, they makeit impossible for themselves to do so.

This is about life and death. Anyone who has to live and die is qualified and encouraged to think aout it.

I'm just saying that in our time we are in no danger of cutting off the head of suicides and burying them at a crossroads; we are in danger of the opposite - of glorifying suicide and forbidding anyone to say that suicide is an essentially evil act, whether it is intended as such or not. And objections to my saying so underscore the truth of that danger.

Fantastika
13-08-2014, 08:59
Hey, Alan... Ever give birth to a baby yourself? Ever been a Negro paraplegic?

One would think the best person to speak about suicide is the person who has successfully done it. Only, obviously, they makeit impossible for themselves to do so.

This is about life and death. Anyone who has to live and die is qualified and encouraged to think aout it.

I'm just saying that in our time we are in no danger of cutting off the head of suicides and burying them at a crossroads; we are in danger of the opposite - of glorifying suicide and forbidding anyone to say that suicide is an essentially evil act, whether it is intended as such or not. And objections to my saying so underscore the truth of that danger.

Condoning suicides at the end of life, glorifying abortions to prevent life - the Progressives are attacking life at its beginnings and at its ends.

In the 50's, with the help of Hollywood ("Rebel Without a Cause", et al) the "Progressives" severed the child from the adult, creating civil strife in the family unit, by creating the "teenager", about which, of course, only the Progressives (social scientist elite) were knowledgable. Thus began the demise of the American family unit and growing Progressive (anti-Christian) control of our lives.

rusmeister
13-08-2014, 09:59
Condoning suicides at the end of life, glorifying abortions to prevent life - the Progressives are attacking life at its beginnings and at its ends.

In the 50's, with the help of Hollywood ("Rebel Without a Cause", et al) the "Progressives" severed the child from the adult, creating civil strife in the family unit, by creating the "teenager", about which, of course, only the Progressives (social scientist elite) were knowledgable. Thus began the demise of the American family unit and growing Progressive (anti-Christian) control of our lives.

I think you're quite right, though I think both the idea of "a teenager" as something different from "a youth" and the assault on the family began earlier.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=teenager&allowed_in_frame=0

The introduction of easy (no-fault) divorce was the first great attack on the family in my estimation. The idea that a sacred vow could be broken by signing papers is also purely a modern idea, which is generally the absence of thought.

Calling such ideas "progressive" is absurd, so the term "Progressive" is flagrant nonsense. One cannot speak intelligently about"progress" unless they have clear and unchanging ideals (previously known as dogmas) about what is "good" and what is "the best", the ideal. It's a product of evolutionary thought, which imagines man in a state of eternal change from we-know-not-what to we-know-not-what, with even the idea of "man" being a thing with no stable, permanent nature. So naturally, moral ideas, for them, will also similarly change, so that what was wicked the day before yesterday will be good the day after tomorrow.

Of course, the "progressive" mind imagines that all generations will accept its own moral assumptions without question, and cannot imagine their grandchildren rejecting their own moral standards as proudly as they reject their grandparents'. And so we will see all sorts of evils, from the sale of living humans for body parts to approval of sexual evils such as necrophilia and pedophilia, as those grandchildren (or should I just say "children"?) toss our own ideas about sex and death as "outdated", "backward", "the Dark Ages" and so on.

Of course, suicide will have a prominent place of honor. It is not a big step from approving or allowing people to get rid of themselves because they are a nuisance to themselves to our getting rid of them because they are a nuisance to us. We will be "sad", and post things like "Genie, you're 'free'!"... Oh wait - they're already doing that.

Fantastika
13-08-2014, 10:43
I think you're quite right, though I think both the idea of "a teenager" as something different from "a youth" and the assault on the family began earlier.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=teenager&allowed_in_frame=0

The introduction of easy (no-fault) divorce was the first great attack on the family in my estimation. The idea that a sacred vow could be broken by signing papers is also purely a modern idea, which is generally the absence of thought.

Calling such ideas "progressive" is absurd, so the term "Progressive" is flagrant nonsense. ... So naturally, moral ideas, for them, will also similarly change, so that what was wicked the day before yesterday will be good the day after tomorrow.

Of course, the "progressive" mind imagines that all generations will accept its own moral assumptions without question, and cannot imagine their grandchildren rejecting their own moral standards...


Rus, I have a problem thinking of "Progressives" as following any kind of system of morality. To me they are amoral. Not necessarily immoral, but amoral. They focus on "values" not morals. And if a moral system is like a tree firmly rooted in the ground, a value is like a brittle twig that will blow away in a strong breeze.

Michael Savage (4th-most popular talk-show host in US) says that Russia is "the last bulwark against the spread of the New World Order."

The US, with its clownish foreign policy, and its domestic focus on homosexual marriage, legalization of illegal drugs, promotion of gambling, profligate spending like a drunken sailor, rather than adhering to moral standards others in the international community can aspire to, is gone.

The US is gone, Western Europe is gone, all that remains with a traditional Christian-based morality, is Russia.

Savage is a super-intelligent guy, but he speaks his truth too freely, so he attracts a lot of criticism and censorship.

I'm thinking that what Savage means when he says Russia stands alone against the "New World Order" it is the last bastion of traditional morality. I can kind of see where he is coming from...

What say you, Great One?

rusmeister
13-08-2014, 14:35
Rus, I have a problem thinking of "Progressives" as following any kind of system of morality. To me they are amoral. Not necessarily immoral, but amoral. They focus on "values" not morals. And if a moral system is like a tree firmly rooted in the ground, a value is like a brittle twig that will blow away in a strong breeze.

Michael Savage (4th-most popular talk-show host in US) says that Russia is "the last bulwark against the spread of the New World Order."

The US, with its clownish foreign policy, and its domestic focus on homosexual marriage, legalization of illegal drugs, promotion of gambling, profligate spending like a drunken sailor, rather than adhering to moral standards others in the international community can aspire to, is gone.

The US is gone, Western Europe is gone, all that remains with a traditional Christian-based morality, is Russia.

Savage is a super-intelligent guy, but he speaks his truth too freely, so he attracts a lot of criticism and censorship.

I'm thinking that what Savage means when he says Russia stands alone against the "New World Order" it is the last bastion of traditional morality. I can kind of see where he is coming from...

What say you, Great One?

(Wondering who the "Great One" could be...)

I largely agree.

I think it's possible to overrate Russia's adherence to traditional "Christian-based" morality, though.

Certainly, in terms of sexual morality, the West is falling faster than Russia. But here people are OK with "sleeping" together without marriage, adultery, and abortion, to name a few, and in those issues are not distinguishable from Western immorality.

You are totally right in pointing put the preference for values (a market-based term, implying that morals can be bought or sold) over morals.

Fantastika
13-08-2014, 15:35
I largely agree.

I think it's possible to overrate Russia's adherence to traditional "Christian-based" morality, though.


I used the wrong word "adherence" - I meant to say, for comparison, that in the US, gambling, for example, is rapidly expanding and is encouraged by the state (the commercials on the radio: "You could be the next rich Gazillionaire!") and casinos are popping up everywhere there is an Indian reservation or a state government with cash to burn, whereas Russia is going in the opposite direction, closing down the casino's.

Of course, there is only some "adherence" to morality, but it is there as a guideline, a goal, something to aspire to. A person can gamble, commit adultery, steal, etc., but know that those things are wrong. But the progressive would say "gambling is fun," "adultery is nothing but 'sexual freedom'," stealing is only "social justice".

In the US, the media openly mocks anyone or anything to do with Christians, or traditional morality. Sarah Palin was demonized, more than any other reason, because of her Christian beliefs. We don't have a Pussy Riot, that part of the War on Traditional Morality was won long ago by the Progressives.

rusmeister
13-08-2014, 16:21
I used the wrong word "adherence" - I meant to say, for comparison, that in the US, gambling, for example, is rapidly expanding and is encouraged by the state (the commercials on the radio: "You could be the next rich Gazillionaire!") and casinos are popping up everywhere there is an Indian reservation or a state government with cash to burn, whereas Russia is going in the opposite direction, closing down the casino's.

Of course, there is only some "adherence" to morality, but it is there as a guideline, a goal, something to aspire to. A person can gamble, commit adultery, steal, etc., but know that those things are wrong. But the progressive would say "gambling is fun," "adultery is nothing but 'sexual freedom'," stealing is only "social justice".

In the US, the media openly mocks anyone or anything to do with Christians, or traditional morality. Sarah Palin was demonized, more than any other reason, because of her Christian beliefs. We don't have a Pussy Riot, that part of the War on Traditional Morality was won long ago by the Progressives.

Yeah.
The one comment I would add here is that casinos are still mostly around; they've just been renamed with nice new terms like "Bukmeker" and seem to have most of the stuff casinos have. Ostensibly sports betting, but with one-armd bandits and more, doesn't look limited to that.

Uncle Wally
13-08-2014, 16:34
Back on topic.


http://www.infowars.com/was-robin-williams-on-suicide-pills/

Fantastika
13-08-2014, 18:07
Back on topic.


http://www.infowars.com/was-robin-williams-on-suicide-pills/

Latest comments from that article:

NewHampshire Bound • an hour ago

Robin Williams died by accident of auto-erotic asphyxiation. I guess the family thinks the lie is less embarrassing. All the signs are there.

He was found near an open closet door of the bedroom, a common sign. Plus he was getting very thin lately which could indicate he was fcking around with coke again.

Depression, coke, kinky games, accidental death. NOT depression then suicide by self hanging. Someone with access to any amount of money and drugs will NOT hang themselves.

• Reply•Share ›

kevin NewHampshire Bound • 6 minutes ago

What I find odd, is how Robin Williams wife first said she found him in his bed and wasn't responsive. Then the publicist said beside a closet door. They also said he had hung him self with a belt... I hand make custom leather belts and the only belt that may support someone around 235lbs+ is a custom 8-9 oz 2" leather belt.

If true about SSRI's (psychotropic drugs) it's just another indication of the deadly role psychiatric drugs play in America. Of course the psychiatric community, in concert with the media, will deny and bury any prescribed drug information, to protect their reputation.

Listen up, MickeyTong! (You won't be getting many more clues about the common denominator in US school shootings).

MickeyTong
14-08-2014, 12:52
FTR, Andy, I'm not speaking to the tragedy of his death - which it certainly is; the question is whether we should treat it like an accident - which is how most people treat suicide in our time - or like murder.
Does a person, great or otherwise, have some intrinsic right to murder oneself?
(Obviously, I think not, but I suspect a lot of people now do.)

And I'm sure Mickey could say a hundred things about spiritually ill people - and I would not contend a lot of what he would say - in those cases of agreement I would point out only that it is, in the case of a successful suicide, a fatal illness, an epidemic, like Ebola, only swifter, which we (in my opinion) indifferently tolerate among ourselves.

Even the Protestant traditions I grew up with and around, the normal thing to say is "Rest in peace". But unless we believe the person is actually resting, a state which, at some point, would end with the person restored, what good is there in saying it? I like how the Orthodox say it in English - "Memory eternal!", which we believe can only be maintained in God, as all humans, and human memory, passes and ends, and once it ends, it is no more. Personally, I like the coincidence in English of reading the words of the thief on the cross, "Remember me in Thy Kingdom" as "re-member", to once again put the person together again*, to do to Humpty Dumpty what all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't do. And that is what the hope beyond death is about for Christians, who believe in the eternal value of the individual personality, of having the individual completely restored.

The main condition of eternal happiness is repentance, of being sorry for what you did that was wrong, that actually ruined things, and determine to change that, to come to hate what you once thought was OK. The trouble with suicide is that it renders repentance in this life impossible, and that's not unimportant if it matters what eternal vector you finish your life on.



*It would be absurd for those words to mean only "Think about me in a past tense!" One could picture Christ walking in heaven, talking to an angel, saying "Do you remember Dismas, the guy on the cross? Nice fellow, he was." or something like that.

Rus, those of us who actually work with suicidal people and have an ethical responsibility for their well being do NOT "indifferently tolerate" suicide. I hope you agree that there are clinical states whereby people are NOT responsible for their actions. Profound depression is one of them, and one of its symptoms is an inability to feel hope. So even deeply religious people (of all faiths) who are profoundly depressed cannot look forward to a better future in this world or the next. Usually religious faith is prophylactic against acting on suicidal feelings, but having those feelings tends to convince them that they are spiritually doomed for being the worst of people.

Obviously I don't know the details of Robin Williams's mental health and can't comment on his specific suicide. But I agree with you that his suicide was a tragedy - for him and for those who loved/were loved by him - as suicide is in every case (including incidents of "altruistic suicide" [read Durkheim]).

Perhaps a new thread on the subject would be a better place to expound on this.

rusmeister
14-08-2014, 13:18
Rus, those of us who actually work with suicidal people and have an ethical responsibility for their well being do NOT "indifferently tolerate" suicide. I hope you agree that there are clinical states whereby people are NOT responsible for their actions. Profound depression is one of them, and one of its symptoms is an inability to feel hope. So even deeply religious people (of all faiths) who are profoundly depressed cannot look forward to a better future in this world or the next. Usually religious faith is prophylactic against acting on suicidal feelings, but having those feelings tends to convince them that they are spiritually doomed for being the worst of people.

Obviously I don't know the details of Robin Williams's mental health and can't comment on his specific suicide. But I agree with you that his suicide was a tragedy - for him and for those who loved/were loved by him - as suicide is in every case (including incidents of "altruistic suicide" [read Durkheim]).

Perhaps a new thread on the subject would be a better place to expound on this.

Hiya, Mickey,
As always, I speak to mankind in general, and understand the difference between the rules and the exceptions.
I speak of everyone whom the thought of suicide has crossed the mind of at one time or another in life - and I think that certainly includes most of us - and so am addressing that.
I think there certainly ARE states where people are truly not responsible for their actions - I believe that is NOT the case with most suicides. But I am not speaking about the clinical cases where I would AGREE with you that the person was deep in something they literally had no control over. We'll disagree over some of those instances. But not all of them.

I do not think even profound depression on its own is among such cases. Depression alone does not deprive one of responsibility. In conjunction with other things, sure it could.

I think your claim about "religious people" is a too-broad generalization, though would certainly concede that some forms of religion do indeed peddle guilt without hope. The one I adhere to, the one I hold to be the most traditional and ancient view, does indeed affirm that I am the chief of sinners - but it also affirms God's infinite mercy. Certainly anyone can imagine anything, and remember the guilt and miss the part about God's mercy, but that is hardly the fault of the teaching of the Christian Church in history.

I certainly agree that suicide is a tragedy. I merely say that it is, 99.999% of the time, an AVOIDABLE tragedy, for which responsibility ought to be admitted, and in fact is not. THAT is what I mean by our time putting suicide on a peculiar pedestal - not one where we deliberately approve of it, but in fact wind up doing so by denying the responsibility of the overwhelming majority for their acts. If a person has taken drugs, they are responsible for that. If a captain of a ship takes a nap, and a junior officer runs the ship aground, we still have this peculiar habit of holding the captain responsible. If a person gets drunk and drives and crashes, killing someone, we hold the person responsible, even though he didn't mean to kill anyone. He did something to make the tragedy possible. Why does the suicide get a free pass? Why are we so enamored with it that we can't bear criticism of the act of suicide? Is it because some want to "hold that option open" for themselves should life take a bad turn?

I think the objections to this, that suicide is something (in most cases) we really can reject and avoid, like any other temptation, and that therefore there ought to be social stigma against it - social stigma being a good thing when it rejects things destructive to society - arise at least in part from this desire to have a legitimatized escape hatch for ourselves should we want it.

PS - I think this thread is just fine. There's nothing inappropriate, no cursing, no insults or violations of forum rules. I myself was upset - the man was an inspiration for me, and it got me thinking how these things - suicide and divorce - affect so many more people than just ourselves.

Uncle Wally
14-08-2014, 13:36
I think he meant that we should try to have some class in this thread and pay our respects not debate. You act like this at somebody's wake?


This is how I would like to remember him,


Koko the Gorilla with Robin Williams.mp4 - YouTube

natlee
14-08-2014, 13:54
I liked this one: (obviously)

http://teamcoco.com/video/robin-williams-best-talk-show-guest-in-the-world

Uncle Wally
14-08-2014, 14:03
I liked this one: (obviously)

http://teamcoco.com/video/robin-williams-best-talk-show-guest-in-the-world




Yup that was very nice.

MickeyTong
14-08-2014, 15:11
If true about SSRI's (psychotropic drugs) it's just another indication of the deadly role psychiatric drugs play in America. Of course the psychiatric community, in concert with the media, will deny and bury any prescribed drug information, to protect their reputation.

Listen up, MickeyTong! (You won't be getting many more clues about the common denominator in US school shootings).

I'm listening up, Fantastika! Common denominator......hmmmm. It can't be Prozac, because there are depressed teenagers all over the world who take Prozac without going postal at school. Maybe the common denominator is the easy availability of firearms in the US and the "Die Hard", "High Noon" individualist maverick "Gunsmoke" culture which glorifies superior firepower as the solution to all problems.

Or maybe it's the US antipathy towards socialised health care: these kids and their families can't afford access to effective mental health care.

Have you considered the "deadly role" hospitals play in America? Infections acquired in hospitals kill 99 000 Americans every year. Let's ban hospitals!

rusmeister
14-08-2014, 19:31
I think he meant that we should try to have some class in this thread and pay our respects not debate. You act like this at somebody's wake?


But this is not a wake; it is a discussion board.
If you wish to pay your respects, by all means! I'm not stopping you.

I picked up a rumor that it may NOT have been suicide, but something, if not worse, then more embarassing. But I'm not pursuing or promoting such rumors.

But if a person committed suicide, then it is relevant and appropriate to discuss suicide, to consider what it is, and how we ought to see and understand it.

It is these attempts to discourage or even smother such discussion that completely makes my point that people now seek to make suicide respectable, and object to any observations that it is not, and ought not to be respectable, however much we love or admire the lives of the people who choose to go through with it.

I think this deserves repeating:
Why does the suicide get a free pass? Why are we so enamored with it that we can't bear criticism of the act of suicide?

TolkoRaz
14-08-2014, 19:43
Guilt?

Uncle Wally
14-08-2014, 21:56
But this is not a wake; it is a discussion board.
If you wish to pay your respects, by all means! I'm not stopping you.

I picked up a rumor that it may NOT have been suicide, but something, if not worse, then more embarassing. But I'm not pursuing or promoting such rumors.

But if a person committed suicide, then it is relevant and appropriate to discuss suicide, to consider what it is, and how we ought to see and understand it.

It is these attempts to discourage or even smother such discussion that completely makes my point that people now seek to make suicide respectable, and object to any observations that it is not, and ought not to be respectable, however much we love or admire the lives of the people who choose to go through with it.

I think this deserves repeating:
Why does the suicide get a free pass? Why are we so enamored with it that we can't bear criticism of the act of suicide?



Rus you plan on going to heaven?

vossy7
14-08-2014, 22:09
Guilt?

Fear ,psychotic .......mistake?

MickeyTong
15-08-2014, 00:34
I do not think even profound depression on its own is among such cases. Depression alone does not deprive one of responsibility. In conjunction with other things, sure it could.


Perhaps my understanding of profound depression differs from yours, based on 25 years of experience assessing and treating varying degrees of depression. Those at the more profound end of the spectrum tend to be detained against their will in hospital because they are not responsible for their actions and they are a danger to themselves, either through self neglect or deliberate self harm based on seriously defective thinking arising from chemical imbalance in the brain.

rusmeister
15-08-2014, 01:09
Perhaps my understanding of profound depression differs from yours, based on 25 years of experience assessing and treating varying degrees of depression. Those at the more profound end of the spectrum tend to be detained against their will in hospital because they are not responsible for their actions and they are a danger to themselves, either through self neglect or deliberate self harm based on seriously defective thinking arising from chemical imbalance in the brain.

But even there, Mick, I don't believe that it's just chemical imbalances. Sure, chemistry can help, but I think the root cause is spiritual, the implication of the very term "psych-iatry". So by all means, medicate. I think medication (treatment of the physical, materialist assumptions of our nature) isn't enough, though.

But rather than talk about things that presume one worldview or another, I'd rather focus on what we might be able to begin - if only begin - to agree on. Like, "Does suicide impact other people besides the suicide himself?" or "What exactly IS suicide? What do we think a person is doing in killing themselves?"

MickeyTong
15-08-2014, 01:13
I think your claim about "religious people" is a too-broad generalization, though would certainly concede that some forms of religion do indeed peddle guilt without hope. The one I adhere to, the one I hold to be the most traditional and ancient view, does indeed affirm that I am the chief of sinners - but it also affirms God's infinite mercy. Certainly anyone can imagine anything, and remember the guilt and miss the part about God's mercy, but that is hardly the fault of the teaching of the Christian Church in history.


Sorry if my statement was confusing. I was not saying that depression arises from religious doctrine Depression is a biological illness and arises regardless of religious doctrine, whether or not the religion peddles guilt or hope. Deeply depressed people lose the ability to feel hope.

You may find this very materialistic, but the brain is an organ just like the kidneys, liver, lungs, etc. As other organs can be dysfunctional and lose their ability to discharge their function, so can the brain. Among the functions of the brain are regulation of mood, capacity for reality-based thinking and processing of perceptions. Profound depression renders a person incapable of these things, and this incapacity is not a choice.

Uncle Wally
15-08-2014, 01:27
Rus you plan on going to heaven?




Because if you do Rus hell looks like a much better option than spending eternity with people like you.

Uncle Wally
15-08-2014, 01:33
Sorry if my statement was confusing. I was not saying that depression arises from religious doctrine Depression is a biological illness and arises regardless of religious doctrine, whether or not the religion peddles guilt or hope. Deeply depressed people lose the ability to feel hope.

You may find this very materialistic, but the brain is an organ just like the kidneys, liver, lungs, etc. As other organs can be dysfunctional and lose their ability to discharge their function, so can the brain. Among the functions of the brain are regulation of mood, capacity for reality-based thinking and processing of perceptions. Profound depression renders a person incapable of these things, and this incapacity is not a choice.



Can you get depressed by people droneing on about religious doctrine? Because if I had to read his post for too long I think I would just beat myself with a vodka bottle about the head instead of drinking.

MickeyTong
15-08-2014, 01:40
But even there, Mick, I don't believe that it's just chemical imbalances. Sure, chemistry can help, but I think the root cause is spiritual, the implication of the very term "psych-iatry". So by all means, medicate. I think medication (treatment of the physical, materialist assumptions of our nature) isn't enough, though.

But rather than talk about things that presume one worldview or another, I'd rather focus on what we might be able to begin - if only begin - to agree on. Like, "Does suicide impact other people besides the suicide himself?" or "What exactly IS suicide? What do we think a person is doing in killing themselves?"

Rus, I didn't invent the word "psychiatry", and I actually think that when endocrinologists and neurologists bump up their game "soul doctoring" could go the same way as "phrenology".

"Does suicide impact other people...."? Hell, yeah. I don't know anyone working in mental health services who have not been impacted by suicide. Even before we go to inquests we tend to beat ourselves up trying to find "where we went wrong" in the support we gave. We also give support to family/friends of people who have killed themselves. Yeah, Rus, suicide leaves a very unpleasant legacy.

"What is a person doing...."? Often they are acting on the (usually erroneous) belief that the world/their families would be a better place without them.

Mental health workers make a big big big effort to prevent suicide. We don't celebrate it. It isn't party time.

rusmeister
15-08-2014, 08:21
Rus, I didn't invent the word "psychiatry", and I actually think that when endocrinologists and neurologists bump up their game "soul doctoring" could go the same way as "phrenology".

"Does suicide impact other people...."? Hell, yeah. I don't know anyone working in mental health services who have not been impacted by suicide. Even before we go to inquests we tend to beat ourselves up trying to find "where we went wrong" in the support we gave. We also give support to family/friends of people who have killed themselves. Yeah, Rus, suicide leaves a very unpleasant legacy.

"What is a person doing...."? Often they are acting on the (usually erroneous) belief that the world/their families would be a better place without them.

Mental health workers make a big big big effort to prevent suicide. We don't celebrate it. It isn't party time.

And no one says you don't.
Again, I feel like you are taking something I am describing as a general public attitude and wrongly applying it to your specialist work.

And what is wrong with that attitude is epitomized in the meme "Genie, you're free", casting (in opposition to the work you do AGAINST suicide) the act as one of freedom; equating freedom (a condition that can only be enjoyed by the living) with death.
It is that unpleasant legacy that you describe that requires social stigma for the normal majority that rationally (though wrongly) decides that it is "necessary", a stigma that should include "assisted suicide" and the whole idea of leaving the world when you want, and it is this that people object to, because (imo) they DO want that option kept open for them should they ever want it.

Oh, and I think that any doctoring of the soul can only be effective insofar as it is aligned with the truth about the human soul. The less aligned it is, the more its effectiveness will be purely coincidental rather than consequential.

rusmeister
15-08-2014, 08:25
Can you get depressed by people droneing on about religious doctrine? Because if I had to read his post for too long I think I would just beat myself with a vodka bottle about the head instead of drinking.

Where have I "droned on about religion"? I haven't dragged religion into this. If speaking about morality and truth is "religion", then we are ALL "religious".

I'll tell you what I DO believe in - I believe in reincarnations of members who have been banned from this site.

vossy7
15-08-2014, 08:27
Can you get depressed by people droneing on about religious doctrine? Because if I had to read his post for too long I think I would just beat myself with a vodka bottle about the head instead of drinking.

UW, if you can't stand the heat then don't bang the kitchen door on your way out!

rusmeister
15-08-2014, 08:47
Sorry if my statement was confusing. I was not saying that depression arises from religious doctrine Depression is a biological illness and arises regardless of religious doctrine, whether or not the religion peddles guilt or hope. Deeply depressed people lose the ability to feel hope.

You may find this very materialistic, but the brain is an organ just like the kidneys, liver, lungs, etc. As other organs can be dysfunctional and lose their ability to discharge their function, so can the brain. Among the functions of the brain are regulation of mood, capacity for reality-based thinking and processing of perceptions. Profound depression renders a person incapable of these things, and this incapacity is not a choice.

Well, I think we are naturally going to clash on some of these things, as your worldview IS materialist, insofar as I have seen, and mine is spiritual - that we are a hybrid of material and spirit. So yes, I do acknowledge impact of physical treatment on the soul; what I mean is that treatment that does not deal with the soul is going to be coincidentally effective at best, harmful at worst.

Depression springs first and foremost from the soul. It can fill and poison the body, yes. But it starts in the soul, and it is in the soul that the important battle hould be fought. "Profound" means "deep". I have experienced it myself and am no stranger to it. In my own experience, faith has been the greatest tool for dealing with it; also, that fat jolly guy everybody is tired of reading about (though they have never read him) I have found to be very uplifting, teaching joy and gratitude, the prime antidote to depression, to constantly bring to conscious awareness that everything we have - from a roof over our heads to our fingers to our very lives is a gift, that it might not be but IS. (Speaking in generalities, about most people, which will tend to not include much of what you work with) Depression generally starts in taking what we do have for granted and then feeling sad about what we want to be different, and it spirals downward. It starts from all that we have but sees only the negative, and so negativity multiplies. Gratitude does the opposite, taking nothing for granted, starting from zero and seeing the pluses. A person, for whatever reasons, has to be in that negative spiral for a long time before any need for treatment is recognized or begun.

So in general, it is a condition that we can do something about. And when we can do something but don't, that brings in personal responsibility.

Again, I understand you deal with people who are so far gone and deep in it that they really DO need medication; that their brains and other organs really have been poisoned by the wrong spiritual attitude. But it IS a spiritual attitude, and it IS possible to change it.

Judge
15-08-2014, 09:11
Can you get depressed by people droneing on about religious doctrine? Because if I had to read his post for too long I think I would just beat myself with a vodka bottle about the head instead of drinking.

If you don't like a members posts then put that member on ignore,no need to keep on about them...
The discussion that Rus and Mickey are having is very interesting, and I am interested in hearing what both of them have to say about depression.


Sad to hear about Robin Williams and the way he died,he must have been going through a lot in the final days leading up to his death...
There's talk about money,drink and work problems,now just read he had been diagnosed with Parkinsonís disease.
It's a shame he couldn't find someone to talk to in his darkest hours..
RIP

vossy7
15-08-2014, 09:30
If you don't like a members posts then put that member on ignore,no need to keep on about them...
The discussion that Rus an Mickey are having is very interesting, and I am interested in hearing what both of them have to say about depression.


Sad to hear about Robin Williams and the way he died,he must have been going through a lot in the final days leading up to his death...
There's talk about money,drink and work problems,now just read he had been diagnosed with Parkinsonís disease.
It's a shame he couldn't find someone to talk to in his darkest hours..
RIP

Hear ,hear :thumbsup:

rusmeister
15-08-2014, 11:33
If you don't like a members posts then put that member on ignore,no need to keep on about them...
The discussion that Rus and Mickey are having is very interesting, and I am interested in hearing what both of them have to say about depression.


Sad to hear about Robin Williams and the way he died,he must have been going through a lot in the final days leading up to his death...
There's talk about money,drink and work problems,now just read he had been diagnosed with Parkinsonís disease.
It's a shame he couldn't find someone to talk to in his darkest hours..
RIP
I totally agree.

I don't think we can say anything with absolute authority about any individual case, including Williams', which is why I speak in generalities, but we used to have two institutions that provided that "someone to talk to" - friends and priests. The former has, for many people living in increasing isolation amid plenty, become a problem for many of us, and the isolation is intensified when we live electronically instead of face-to-face, and most of us have completely dispensed with the latter. And so we have seen the rise of a class of professional paid strangers - experts - very appropriate for dealing with the radical exceptions, but woefully inadequate for dealing with the mass of typical situations.

When, as most do, you need someone to talk to, relationship is what makes the difference. And it is much more difficult (impossible for many) to establish a relationship of trust over time with the professional stranger,whose services you must pay for somehow, than with the priest at your local parish or your friends.

And the saddest irony is that Williams had ample opportunity to avail himself of that professional help - and what he got didn't help him. That's not to say that professional help is useless or unnecessary, only that I think our tendency to rely on it is really overrated, and a return to a stronger reliance on the older "institutions" is called for.

Uncle Wally
15-08-2014, 18:31
But this is not a wake; it is a discussion board.
If you wish to pay your respects, by all means! I'm not stopping you.

I picked up a rumor that it may NOT have been suicide, but something, if not worse, then more embarassing. But I'm not pursuing or promoting such rumors.

But if a person committed suicide, then it is relevant and appropriate to discuss suicide, to consider what it is, and how we ought to see and understand it.

It is these attempts to discourage or even smother such discussion that completely makes my point that people now seek to make suicide respectable, and object to any observations that it is not, and ought not to be respectable, however much we love or admire the lives of the people who choose to go through with it.

I think this deserves repeating:
Why does the suicide get a free pass? Why are we so enamored with it that we can't bear criticism of the act of suicide?


What are you saying here Rus? That he could have accidentally killed himself while wacking off? Not promoting it? You just did. I just hope his family doesn't have to read stuff your writing.

You know Rus I had a friend kill himself many years ago. I asked his wife once why he seemed bummed out a lot and she told me that he had depression and that he didn't like the way the pills made him feel so he wouldn't take them all the time. He had a great wife and a young son he just loved like crazy. They were really in love. I remember them telling me about how when they first met his parents didn't like her and wouldn't let her live with them (he had rich parents) and they were young and didn't have enough money to rent a place so they lived in his car or broke into homes that were still being built. ( I had actually chased them out of one I was working on but didn't know it was them and didn't know them at the time and only met them year later after little Stevie was born) But they made it and were having a great life with lots of love but he was still depressed sometimes. I had lost contact with them for some time but his wife stopped by one day because she needed to hang out for a little while and didn't want to drive all the way home, it was starting to snow and I was closer to were she needed to go. I was the last one to see her alive, she slid in the snow and hit a tree killing herself and hurting little Stevie very bad. Everybody watched my friend very close because we all knew how he could be. The next spring I came back from a month on the road to his call and went to see him, one of the first things he told me was how these bible thumper came to his door that day and asked if they knew how bad they can make someone feel for not believing. Ok he got that way about things but when I left he seemed pretty good we had a blast and I had him rolling on the floor. He still shot himself a month later and I just felt bad for him because I knew that he wasn't a bad guy, he was a great dad, surely was no sinner and it wasn't his fault! I felt helpless, we all did, but we never blamed him.

rusmeister
15-08-2014, 20:00
What are you saying here Rus? That he could have accidentally killed himself while wacking off? Not promoting it? You just did. I just hope his family doesn't have to read stuff your writing.

You know Rus I had a friend kill himself many years ago. I asked his wife once why he seemed bummed out a lot and she told me that he had depression and that he didn't like the way the pills made him feel so he wouldn't take them all the time. He had a great wife and a young son he just loved like crazy. They were really in love. I remember them telling me about how when they first met his parents didn't like her and wouldn't let her live with them (he had rich parents) and they were young and didn't have enough money to rent a place so they lived in his car or broke into homes that were still being built. ( I had actually chased them out of one I was working on but didn't know it was them and didn't know them at the time and only met them year later after little Stevie was born) But they made it and were having a great life with lots of love but he was still depressed sometimes. I had lost contact with them for some time but his wife stopped by one day because she needed to hang out for a little while and didn't want to drive all the way home, it was starting to snow and I was closer to were she needed to go. I was the last one to see her alive, she slid in the snow and hit a tree killing herself and hurting little Stevie very bad. Everybody watched my friend very close because we all knew how he could be. The next spring I came back from a month on the road to his call and went to see him, one of the first things he told me was how these bible thumper came to his door that day and asked if they knew how bad they can make someone feel for not believing. Ok he got that way about things but when I left he seemed pretty good we had a blast and I had him rolling on the floor. He still shot himself a month later and I just felt bad for him because I knew that he wasn't a bad guy, he was a great dad, surely was no sinner and it wasn't his fault! I felt helpless, we all did, but we never blamed him.

Who says these things are not tragic? Nobody.
I could print sad stories around suicide myself. The de facto usher at my church has to live every day with the suicide of her son, something even worse than the death of a spouse. The one thing you don't touch on is what suicide IS. And you seem to imply that suicide is a normal and natural course to take when such things happen in your life.
How about his boy, Stevie? What did his dad's suicide to to him? You don't think there's any blame there, huh? Well I do. I happen to think parents owe their children more loyalty than that, sad and heartbreaking as the mother's death is.

And honestly, what did the "bible thumper" really have to do with that suicide? (Other than your wanting to pour bile on serious belief?) I don't like door-to-door salesmen, either, but there'd have to be something else to that story to make someone want to kill himself.

rusmeister
15-08-2014, 20:07
This may be a shocking thought, since it's unlikely anyone has thought about this aspect of suicide.
I'd note that we speak of "ending it all". Indeed, that IS what it means.

"Not only is suicide a sin, it is the sin. It is the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take an interest in existence; the refusal to take the oath of loyalty to life. The man who kills a man, kills a man. The man who kills himself, kills all men; as far as he is concerned he wipes out the world. His act is worse (symbolically considered) than any rape or dynamite outrage. For it destroys all buildings: it insults all women. The thief is satisfied with diamonds; but the suicide is not: that is his crime. He cannot be bribed, even by the blazing stones of the Celestial City. The thief compliments the things he steals, if not the owner of them. But the suicide insults everything on earth by not stealing it. He defiles every flower by refusing to live for its sake. There is not a tiny creature in the cosmos at whom his death is not a sneer. When a man hangs himself on a tree, the leaves might fall off in anger and the birds fly away in fury: for each has received a personal affront. Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act. There often are for rape, and there almost always are for dynamite. But if it comes to clear ideas and the intelligent meaning of things, then there is much more rational and philosophic truth in the burial at the cross-roads and the stake driven through the body, than in Mr. Archer's suicidal automatic machines. There is a meaning in burying the suicide apart. The man's crime is different from other crimes -- for it makes even crimes impossible."
GKC, Orthodoxy, ch 5, "The Flag of the World"
http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/orthodoxy/ch5.html

Uncle Wally
16-08-2014, 00:11
Who says these things are not tragic? Nobody.
I could print sad stories around suicide myself. The de facto usher at my church has to live every day with the suicide of her son, something even worse than the death of a spouse. The one thing you don't touch on is what suicide IS. And you seem to imply that suicide is a normal and natural course to take when such things happen in your life.
How about his boy, Stevie? What did his dad's suicide to to him? You don't think there's any blame there, huh? Well I do. I happen to think parents owe their children more loyalty than that, sad and heartbreaking as the mother's death is.

And honestly, what did the "bible thumper" really have to do with that suicide? (Other than your wanting to pour bile on serious belief?) I don't like door-to-door salesmen, either, but there'd have to be something else to that story to make someone want to kill himself.


Why is your believe " serious" and mine is what? My religon is more than 12,000 years old don't tell me what is "serious" or not, what gives you the right to tell me what I believe in is wrong? You tell Jews that? Muslim? I only say it to you because you are always and only talking about one thing. We are wrong and you are right. What I believe is all living things are equal, trees, bugs, dogs, and us because we all have life. If you would like to see god or your maker my religon can tell you how. You ready for this? Stop eating because ever time you eat you also kill and you too we become food which makes you the same as all living things. In three or four days you will meet your maker. I have met him. You think animals have no feeling? They don't get sad? Have no soul? Watch Koko when she lost her friend, because Koko knows what love is and love is not selfish, it is not greedy, and it does not judge!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQCOHUXmEZg

Uncle Wally
16-08-2014, 00:13
I would like to thank Robin William for helping me find Koko.

Thank you Robin sorry we could not help you.

MickeyTong
16-08-2014, 01:24
Well, I think we are naturally going to clash on some of these things, as your worldview IS materialist, insofar as I have seen, and mine is spiritual - that we are a hybrid of material and spirit. So yes, I do acknowledge impact of physical treatment on the soul; what I mean is that treatment that does not deal with the soul is going to be coincidentally effective at best, harmful at worst.

Depression springs first and foremost from the soul. It can fill and poison the body, yes. But it starts in the soul, and it is in the soul that the important battle hould be fought. "Profound" means "deep". I have experienced it myself and am no stranger to it. In my own experience, faith has been the greatest tool for dealing with it; also, that fat jolly guy everybody is tired of reading about (though they have never read him) I have found to be very uplifting, teaching joy and gratitude, the prime antidote to depression, to constantly bring to conscious awareness that everything we have - from a roof over our heads to our fingers to our very lives is a gift, that it might not be but IS. (Speaking in generalities, about most people, which will tend to not include much of what you work with) Depression generally starts in taking what we do have for granted and then feeling sad about what we want to be different, and it spirals downward. It starts from all that we have but sees only the negative, and so negativity multiplies. Gratitude does the opposite, taking nothing for granted, starting from zero and seeing the pluses. A person, for whatever reasons, has to be in that negative spiral for a long time before any need for treatment is recognized or begun.

So in general, it is a condition that we can do something about. And when we can do something but don't, that brings in personal responsibility.

Again, I understand you deal with people who are so far gone and deep in it that they really DO need medication; that their brains and other organs really have been poisoned by the wrong spiritual attitude. But it IS a spiritual attitude, and it IS possible to change it.

Rus. Without a (material) magnet there can be no (non-material) magnetic field.

"Depression springs first and foremost from the soul." Do any other biological disorders spring from the soul? Coeliac disease? Crohn's? Motor Neurone Disease? Schizophrenia? Multiple Sclerosis? Alzheimer's? Cystic Fibrosis? Cerebral Palsy? If people keep themselves right "spiritually" these things won't happen to them?

I really don't want to diminish your own personal experience of depression, or anyone else's. But the levels of depression which can be ameliorated by faith, or behavioural change, or changing the way we think are not "profound" or "deep" depression (although subjectively any degree of depression feels deep). Talking therapies (including spiritual counselling and guidance) cannot penetrate profound depression.

There are depressions which are reactions to life events. An experience of loss - when things we expected to continue to give us support and identity are no longer there. Certainly in these cases what people need is to change their perspective, and people can do something about that and do have personal responsibility.

Uncle Wally
16-08-2014, 01:47
What do you know Mickey,


Benny Hinn - God's Healing Presence in Denver Crusade - YouTube

MickeyTong
16-08-2014, 01:58
When, as most do, you need someone to talk to, relationship is what makes the difference. And it is much more difficult (impossible for many) to establish a relationship of trust over time with the professional stranger,whose services you must pay for somehow, than with the priest at your local parish or your friends.

And the saddest irony is that Williams had ample opportunity to avail himself of that professional help - and what he got didn't help him. That's not to say that professional help is useless or unnecessary, only that I think our tendency to rely on it is really overrated, and a return to a stronger reliance on the older "institutions" is called for.

As a professional stranger I am fully aware of the difficulties involved in establishing a relationship of trust. Establishing a "therapeutic alliance" is not easy - why should anyone trust me just because I have a badge? (Or a dog collar or a cross hanging round my neck? Or a T-shirt with a slogan?) People may dismiss me as a "supporter" because they don't like my face, or my shirt, or my age, or my accent, or my gender, or my religious affiliation, or whatever.

I work for the National Health Service and my income is fixed by the State, it comes from the community pot which everyone earning an income contributes to. My income does not rise or fall according to what I recommend or prescribe. People come to see strangers like me because help from their parish priest or friends is not suitable or appropriate. Seriously, Rus, there are some things that people don't want to talk about to their family, friends or their parish priest. People may be OK for these folk to know that they have haemorrhoids, but they don't want them to insert a suppository up their bums.

MickeyTong
16-08-2014, 02:15
I certainly agree that suicide is a tragedy. I merely say that it is, 99.999% of the time, an AVOIDABLE tragedy, for which responsibility ought to be admitted, and in fact is not. THAT is what I mean by our time putting suicide on a peculiar pedestal - not one where we deliberately approve of it, but in fact wind up doing so by denying the responsibility of the overwhelming majority for their acts. He did something to make the tragedy possible. Why does the suicide get a free pass? Why are we so enamored with it that we can't bear criticism of the act of suicide?


Where do you get these figures, Rus? How do you come to the thought that suicide, generally, is put on a pedestal and may not be criticised?

rusmeister
16-08-2014, 08:50
Where do you get these figures, Rus? How do you come to the thought that suicide, generally, is put on a pedestal and may not be criticised?

You err if you think I am making scientific claims with studies (which generally support whatever who funds them wants to be found), data and so on.
I mean the overwhelming majority. I mean that far more people commit suicide than you actually treat. I speak as a man, with inside knowledge of what it is like to BE a man (human, for those that might nitpick), having personal experience of what prolonged depression is. We can understand men because, being men,we are in a sense inside of all men, and so have the ability to imagine what others feel, becuse we know what we would feel in the same circumstances and in sone cases HAVE been in those circumstances.

How do I come to think suicide is put on a pedestal and ought not be criticized? My dear Mickey, look at the responses to my criticisms on this thread alone! Look at all the eulogies that praise the good of Williams' life (and are right to do so insofar as we may and ought to speak good of the dead) and all carefully - even desperately avoid saying that suicide is wrong, saying anything that might suggest to others that they should not copy him.

Where are the admonishments urging US to turn away from suicide, reminding US to think it wrong and undesirable? Yes, people say it is sad and tragic, but everyone carefully avoids condemning the act of suicide itself, as if the suicide were a victim only and NOT also the perpetrator. Yet we ought to condemn the perpetration, and so, speak of the responsibility of the perpetrator. And that's what everyone almost frantically tries to deny or ignore. And if anyone asks about the responsibility of the suicide (like me) he is jumped on.

Maybe you'd admit that, maybe you don't want to. It's certain most don't want to. We have lost Robin Williams, an admirable and even beloved actor. Well it is also true that Robin Williams robbed us of Robin Williams. It really comes down to the question of whether a man has a fundamental right to kill himself. Admitting such a right means approving of certain harm to, and even (were everyone to avail themselves of such a "right") the destruction of society. But wrongs cannot be rights, and so there can be no such "right". Since there ought to be no right to suicide (whatever laws a foolish society may pass) it is then right to criticize suicide, to think about it critically.

rusmeister
16-08-2014, 09:07
Rus. Without a (material) magnet there can be no (non-material) magnetic field.

"Depression springs first and foremost from the soul." Do any other biological disorders spring from the soul? Coeliac disease? Crohn's? Motor Neurone Disease? Schizophrenia? Multiple Sclerosis? Alzheimer's? Cystic Fibrosis? Cerebral Palsy? If people keep themselves right "spiritually" these things won't happen to them?

I really don't want to diminish your own personal experience of depression, or anyone else's. But the levels of depression which can be ameliorated by faith, or behavioural change, or changing the way we think are not "profound" or "deep" depression (although subjectively any degree of depression feels deep). Talking therapies (including spiritual counselling and guidance) cannot penetrate profound depression.

There are depressions which are reactions to life events. An experience of loss - when things we expected to continue to give us support and identity are no longer there. Certainly in these cases what people need is to change their perspective, and people can do something about that and do have personal responsibility.


Without a (material) magnet there can be no (non-material) magnetic field.
Quite so. And without the magnetic field the magnet is a lump of dead iron. I myself insist we are a hybrid, and so think there is such a thing as valid pyschotherapy, and that so-called "Christian Science" - which is neither Christian nor scientific - is nonsense.

I think we're partly disagreeing over semantics. The word "depression" is a popular word as well as a clinical one, and the clinical one, to the best of my knowledge, concerns cases where the physical has been profoundly (in thepular sense) affected by the spiritual. You are speaking of what you deal with, and I think most of what you deal with to be exceptional.

But perhaps we do disagree on the root cause of depression. Depression, in the popular sense, is a relatively recent word; it used to be called despondency. And I think that depression in the clinical sense is most often, most often, mind you, starts as depression in the popular sense. I think that cases where one is physically predisposed to any kind of medical depression to be exceptions, far outnumbered by the ordinary kind of depression, which requires spiritual treatment. I think the changing of perspective is a big part of that, but not limited to that. Your professional experience is rooted in the exceptions to the rule, and I generally speak about the rule. I imagine that's going to have you always saying "Wait a minute!...", let alone the disparity of our world views.

MickeyTong
17-08-2014, 05:52
I mean the overwhelming majority. I mean that far more people commit suicide than you actually treat. I speak as a man, with inside knowledge of what it is like to BE a man (human, for those that might nitpick), having personal experience of what prolonged depression is. We can understand men because, being men,we are in a sense inside of all men, and so have the ability to imagine what others feel, becuse we know what we would feel in the same circumstances and in sone cases HAVE been in those circumstances.

How do I come to think suicide is put on a pedestal and ought not be criticized? My dear Mickey, look at the responses to my criticisms on this thread alone! Look at all the eulogies that praise the good of Williams' life (and are right to do so insofar as we may and ought to speak good of the dead) and all carefully - even desperately avoid saying that suicide is wrong, saying anything that might suggest to others that they should not copy him.

Where are the admonishments urging US to turn away from suicide, reminding US to think it wrong and undesirable? Yes, people say it is sad and tragic, but everyone carefully avoids condemning the act of suicide itself, as if the suicide were a victim only and NOT also the perpetrator. Yet we ought to condemn the perpetration, and so, speak of the responsibility of the perpetrator. And that's what everyone almost frantically tries to deny or ignore. And if anyone asks about the responsibility of the suicide (like me) he is jumped on.

Maybe you'd admit that, maybe you don't want to. It's certain most don't want to. We have lost Robin Williams, an admirable and even beloved actor. Well it is also true that Robin Williams robbed us of Robin Williams. It really comes down to the question of whether a man has a fundamental right to kill himself. Admitting such a right means approving of certain harm to, and even (were everyone to avail themselves of such a "right") the destruction of society. But wrongs cannot be rights, and so there can be no such "right". Since there ought to be no right to suicide (whatever laws a foolish society may pass) it is then right to criticize suicide, to think about it critically.

I am aware (as are the thousands of people who do my job) that 75% of people who kill themselves (in the UK) have had no contact with mental health services. The deaths of these people is usually a total shock to those who know them.

I also speak as a man with inside knowledge and personal experience of depression and a bunch of other unpleasant stuff. So, yeah, I can empathise. My knowledge and understanding do not come just from reading a couple of fecking textbooks.

My dear Rus, where in this thread has suicide been put onto a pedestal? There have been eulogies praising Robin's work and talent. But has anyone said: "Suicide, yeah Robin. Nice move. A great message to give the world. Killing yourself is the best way to deal with depression."?

Here is an admonishment, Rus. Suicide is NOT the solution to depression. There are a variety of ways out of that abyss.

And here's another admonishment. Feeling suicidal is not a sin. It is usually a symptom of a very serious illness. The symptoms of any serious illness are devastating to experience and can be repulsive to witness.

Having said that, I believe that people do have the right to end their lives and suicide can be a rational response to an untenable situation.

MickeyTong
17-08-2014, 06:41
Quite so. And without the magnetic field the magnet is a lump of dead iron. I myself insist we are a hybrid, and so think there is such a thing as valid pyschotherapy, and that so-called "Christian Science" - which is neither Christian nor scientific - is nonsense.

I think we're partly disagreeing over semantics. The word "depression" is a popular word as well as a clinical one, and the clinical one, to the best of my knowledge, concerns cases where the physical has been profoundly (in thepular sense) affected by the spiritual. You are speaking of what you deal with, and I think most of what you deal with to be exceptional.

But perhaps we do disagree on the root cause of depression. Depression, in the popular sense, is a relatively recent word; it used to be called despondency. And I think that depression in the clinical sense is most often, most often, mind you, starts as depression in the popular sense. I think that cases where one is physically predisposed to any kind of medical depression to be exceptions, far outnumbered by the ordinary kind of depression, which requires spiritual treatment. I think the changing of perspective is a big part of that, but not limited to that. Your professional experience is rooted in the exceptions to the rule, and I generally speak about the rule. I imagine that's going to have you always saying "Wait a minute!...", let alone the disparity of our world views.

Wait a minute.....

There are lots of lumps of dead iron which have no magnetic field. A magnetic field only arises because of properties intrinsic to a material substance.

Yes we are having a semantic clash. The popular understanding of "depression" is bollocks: everyone thinks they know what depression is (but what they are talking about is ordinary sadness). However, to an extent they are right - a reactive depression happens when life events give us a snot-squirt, and everyone will probably experience this at some time.
I think you are correct to say that these cases of depression can deteriorate into more profound, enduring and debilitating depressions (at which point they need pharmaceutical interventions).

I also agree that a material physical predisposition to clinical (endogenous) depression is much more rare than what you call "ordinary depression". When you say that this "ordinary depression" requires "spiritual treatment" I would suggest attitudinal change, a re-examining of values and perspective.

I fully appreciate that you speak about the rule. So does every ideologue of every persuasion and faith. I would hope that my speaking on behalf of the exceptions to the rule will make the general electorate and their demagogues think, and incorporate mercy into their policies.

rusmeister
17-08-2014, 07:41
Wait a minute.....

There are lots of lumps of dead iron which have no magnetic field. A magnetic field only arises because of properties intrinsic to a material substance.

Yes we are having a semantic clash. The popular understanding of "depression" is bollocks: everyone thinks they know what depression is (but what they are talking about is ordinary sadness). However, to an extent they are right - a reactive depression happens when life events give us a snot-squirt, and everyone will probably experience this at some time.
I think you are correct to say that these cases of depression can deteriorate into more profound, enduring and debilitating depressions (at which point they need pharmaceutical interventions).

I also agree that a material physical predisposition to clinical (endogenous) depression is much more rare than what you call "ordinary depression". When you say that this "ordinary depression" requires "spiritual treatment" I would suggest attitudinal change, a re-examining of values and perspective.

I fully appreciate that you speak about the rule. So does every ideologue of every persuasion and faith. I would hope that my speaking on behalf of the exceptions to the rule will make the general electorate and their demagogues think, and incorporate mercy into their policies.

I have no problem with that. What I speak against is the modern habit of treating exceptions AS the rule. The modern philosophical assumption (almost never consciously thought) is that there IS no rule; only exceptions. I, like GKC, happen to think that what is common to us is more important than what divides us.

So the quickest way to cut through the semantics is to say that a great many people kill each other because of this "ordinary sadness", far more than those who do so because of an actual physical cause in the brain. I have already distinguished between depression in the common, popular sense - which can also be quite profound; profound in the common and popular sense, profound enough that they DO want to die and are ready, in that emotional unreason, to jump out of a window or whatever - and the clinical depression you are talking about.

As to spiritual treatment - I touched on it, but this is a case where I think your profession and its name are in philosophical contradiction. I think "psyche" means what it says -the soul - because I understand its Greek origins - you do not think so, evidently imagining "the psyche" to merely be something that arises in the brain. I do think change of attitude to be a pivotal part of the treatment - and that's why you get any results at all as far as that goes - but not exclusive. There are things and forces outside of human control and which we know little about. We did not make ourselves, or plan out our sexual reproduction or design of the brain, or our ability of speech, etc. As a practical point, there are certainly many cases where your treatment does not work or does not prevent relapse. You may hold that a more perfect science will eventually solve that; I think there are realities that, because of your worldview, you don't take into account. My view thinks, for instance, that we are beings for whom it is natural and good to worship - the right object; that is, our Creator. It makes sense of both tendencies and desires that I think your view doesn't do a very good job of making sense of. In the end, of course it comes down to difference of opinion; I can only say that I think your view leaves some important things out.

I'll iterate that I really think the rule more important than the exceptions, and that I agree in your call for mercy and to consider the exceptions; only I think those exceptions have been enthroned AS the rule; and so, modern thought gets twisted out of perspective in forgetting the rule.

Uncle Wally
17-08-2014, 10:05
Wait a minute.....

There are lots of lumps of dead iron which have no magnetic field. A magnetic field only arises because of properties intrinsic to a material substance.

Yes we are having a semantic clash. The popular understanding of "depression" is bollocks: everyone thinks they know what depression is (but what they are talking about is ordinary sadness). However, to an extent they are right - a reactive depression happens when life events give us a snot-squirt, and everyone will probably experience this at some time.
I think you are correct to say that these cases of depression can deteriorate into more profound, enduring and debilitating depressions (at which point they need pharmaceutical interventions).

I also agree that a material physical predisposition to clinical (endogenous) depression is much more rare than what you call "ordinary depression". When you say that this "ordinary depression" requires "spiritual treatment" I would suggest attitudinal change, a re-examining of values and perspective.

I fully appreciate that you speak about the rule. So does every ideologue of every persuasion and faith. I would hope that my speaking on behalf of the exceptions to the rule will make the general electorate and their demagogues think, and incorporate mercy into their policies.



Sorry to tell you this but, you live on a big magnet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noGGcyPHtdI

MickeyTong
17-08-2014, 18:30
I can only say that I think your view leaves some important things out.


Rus, some important things are not within the remit of mental health workers. Some of us are religious, but it would be unethical to preach.

rusmeister
17-08-2014, 19:58
Rus, some important things are not within the remit of mental health workers. Some of us are religious, but it would be unethical to preach.

What is ethics? What is morality? What is truth? Anything you think is true you "preach", whether you call it that or not. If you treat an idea as true - that life is worth living, for example - you are preaching that idea. You're already guilty, Mickey. You can't worm out of the charge of "preaching" that way.

I say it is immoral to withhold the truth if you have it. "Ethics" is only the attempt to fit morality into a neat little category of predictability - that excludes religious views while supporting irreligious ones, of course.

C'mon, Tolko - now thank MY post... :)

MickeyTong
17-08-2014, 22:06
What is ethics? What is morality? What is truth? Anything you think is true you "preach", whether you call it that or not. If you treat an idea as true - that life is worth living, for example - you are preaching that idea. You're already guilty, Mickey. You can't worm out of the charge of "preaching" that way.

I say it is immoral to withhold the truth if you have it. "Ethics" is only the attempt to fit morality into a neat little category of predictability - that excludes religious views while supporting irreligious ones, of course.

C'mon, Tolko - now thank MY post... :)

Withhold the truth if you have it......? Rus I have seen "soul snatchers" hovering like vultures around people who are emotionally and cognitively vulnerable, and it makes my blood boil. What truth should a Jewish therapist tell a depressed Christian? What should a Muslim psychiatrist say to a suicidal Jew? How about a Presbyterian to a sick Catholic? Or a Catholic to an Orthodox Christian? How would you, and your family, feel if someone tried to convince you that the Truth is embodied by the Roman Church? What would the Orthodox Church say if health workers wanted to convince its adherents that atheism is the truth?

rusmeister
17-08-2014, 22:37
Withhold the truth if you have it......? Rus I have seen "soul snatchers" hovering like vultures around people who are emotionally and cognitively vulnerable, and it makes my blood boil. What truth should a Jewish therapist tell a depressed Christian? What should a Muslim psychiatrist say to a suicidal Jew? How about a Presbyterian to a sick Catholic? Or a Catholic to an Orthodox Christian? How would you, and your family, feel if someone tried to convince you that the Truth is embodied by the Roman Church? What would the Orthodox Church say if health workers wanted to convince its adherents that atheism is the truth?

Precisely.
Which is why I do not believe in pluralist psychiatry.

But confronted with someone in need, any psychiatrist should deliver what they think true, and not only what they think politically correct.

FTR, I have developed a considerable ability to appreciate attempts by others to share what they believe true. Even if I believe the whole to be false, I can appreciate the large amounts of truth in the views.

Uncle Wally
17-08-2014, 22:42
What is ethics? What is morality? What is truth? Anything you think is true you "preach", whether you call it that or not. If you treat an idea as true - that life is worth living, for example - you are preaching that idea. You're already guilty, Mickey. You can't worm out of the charge of "preaching" that way.

I say it is immoral to withhold the truth if you have it. "Ethics" is only the attempt to fit morality into a neat little category of predictability - that excludes religious views while supporting irreligious ones, of course.

C'mon, Tolko - now thank MY post... :)

Faith, morality, truth, are individual that's why sometimes we don't like others telling us what is truth, what is moral,and have faith in what we believe. We are all on our own journey.

MickeyTong
18-08-2014, 02:00
Precisely.
Which is why I do not believe in pluralist psychiatry.

But confronted with someone in need, any psychiatrist should deliver what they think true, and not only what they think politically correct.

FTR, I have developed a considerable ability to appreciate attempts by others to share what they believe true. Even if I believe the whole to be false, I can appreciate the large amounts of truth in the views.

It's not about pluralist psychiatry, Rus, it's about a pluralist society. Our job in a hospital is to help people become well enough to go home and be safe there. We don't do what is politically correct, we do what is clinically correct. For whoever comes through our door. If people want spiritual guidance and correction within their own faith that is someone else's job: like their priest, rabbi, minister, maulana, pundit or whatever. We actually liaise with these spiritual authorities to help inform our clinical interventions.

FTR, I have developed a considerable ability to appreciate other people's beliefs. I can actually slot into and follow the logic of beliefs, metaphors and narratives which are not my own and can be wildly different to any of the conventional worldviews.

rusmeister
18-08-2014, 08:07
Faith, morality, truth, are individual that's why sometimes we don't like others telling us what is truth, what is moral,and have faith in what we believe. We are all on our own journey.

I'd say your idea is about as far from Plato and Aristotle as one could get. They insisted that truth is universal and objective, and that it is possible to know of it and teach it to others. Your idea makes nonsense of the idea of anybody teaching anybody.

rusmeister
18-08-2014, 08:58
It's not about pluralist psychiatry, Rus, it's about a pluralist society. Our job in a hospital is to help people become well enough to go home and be safe there. We don't do what is politically correct, we do what is clinically correct. For whoever comes through our door. If people want spiritual guidance and correction within their own faith that is someone else's job: like their priest, rabbi, minister, maulana, pundit or whatever. We actually liaise with these spiritual authorities to help inform our clinical interventions.

FTR, I have developed a considerable ability to appreciate other people's beliefs. I can actually slot into and follow the logic of beliefs, metaphors and narratives which are not my own and can be wildly different to any of the conventional worldviews.
I do appreciate that last, and don't take it sarcastically. I'm not surprised. :)

But it IS about pluralist psychiatry. For ALL thought, ALL understandings of everything in the world are framed in terms of one's worldview. Your worldview sees spirituality as a compartment (and this seems somewhat contradictory to your acceptance of our hybrid nature and one aspect affecting the other), as something separable, so that one should deal with one, and leave the other to another.

The question of what is good and what constitutes a patient's being well are contingent on worldview. I would ask what you would do if confronted by a Christian Scientist (the sect) in need of treatment, yet when you prescribe it, they reject everything related to the body. Or any situation where your idea of good is flatly contradicted by the patient's.

It would appear that you believe that it doesn't matter what a patient believes, as long as it "makes him happy" and you can conduct your physical treatment, that beliefs are by definition not true, or don't matter. I don't believe that. I think that if a thing is true it matters. I think that if there ARE such things as demons, for instance, then such things can affect a patient whether he believes in them or not, and especially if he doesn't. I believe that spiritual realities, like physical realities, are objective. If what I believe is true, then your treatment must very often be incomplete, and sometimes even harmful, by offering a wrong treatment for the problem, and having the patient think and hope it is the right thing, and so not seek treatment that would really help. So obviously, you have a strong incentive, related not to what is true but to the sense of purpose you now have to continue doing what you do, to want to believe that what I believe isn't true, and to deny it any way you can.

One thing is certain - a position that demons could exist is more liberal and rational than a universal negative that cannot be universally defended stating that they do not exist. And it's not just a question of demons. It's of any spiritual reality that your worldview doesn't take into account as reality, as true things that matter. And regarding the soul, there is far more that we don't know than we know - except perhaps our own. And a first principle is the fact of our tremendous ability of self-deception.
I think there's a reason Christ said "You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free."

Uncle Wally
18-08-2014, 13:20
I'd say your idea is about as far from Plato and Aristotle as one could get. They insisted that truth is universal and objective, and that it is possible to know of it and teach it to others. Your idea makes nonsense of the idea of anybody teaching anybody.


The didn't believe in god either. So on that we agree.

AstarD
18-08-2014, 13:22
Plato and Aristotle athiests? You must be part of the American 86%.

Uncle Wally
18-08-2014, 15:22
Plato and Aristotle athiests? You must be part of the American 86%.


Didn't say that did I? I said they didn't believe in god.

AstarD
18-08-2014, 15:25
Theism is "belief in the existence of a god or gods". A-theism implies "without theism", i.e. without belief in the existence of god or gods .

Uncle Wally
18-08-2014, 15:29
Theism is "belief in the existence of a god or gods". A-theism implies "without theism", i.e. without belief in the existence of god or gods .


You know what I meant, his god.

natusik76
19-08-2014, 00:22
I still cannot believe he is gone... Sad very sad...

MickeyTong
19-08-2014, 00:49
I do appreciate that last, and don't take it sarcastically. I'm not surprised. :)

But it IS about pluralist psychiatry. For ALL thought, ALL understandings of everything in the world are framed in terms of one's worldview. Your worldview sees spirituality as a compartment (and this seems somewhat contradictory to your acceptance of our hybrid nature and one aspect affecting the other), as something separable, so that one should deal with one, and leave the other to another.

The question of what is good and what constitutes a patient's being well are contingent on worldview. I would ask what you would do if confronted by a Christian Scientist (the sect) in need of treatment, yet when you prescribe it, they reject everything related to the body. Or any situation where your idea of good is flatly contradicted by the patient's.

It would appear that you believe that it doesn't matter what a patient believes, as long as it "makes him happy" and you can conduct your physical treatment, that beliefs are by definition not true, or don't matter. I don't believe that. I think that if a thing is true it matters. I think that if there ARE such things as demons, for instance, then such things can affect a patient whether he believes in them or not, and especially if he doesn't. I believe that spiritual realities, like physical realities, are objective. If what I believe is true, then your treatment must very often be incomplete, and sometimes even harmful, by offering a wrong treatment for the problem, and having the patient think and hope it is the right thing, and so not seek treatment that would really help. So obviously, you have a strong incentive, related not to what is true but to the sense of purpose you now have to continue doing what you do, to want to believe that what I believe isn't true, and to deny it any way you can.

One thing is certain - a position that demons could exist is more liberal and rational than a universal negative that cannot be universally defended stating that they do not exist. And it's not just a question of demons. It's of any spiritual reality that your worldview doesn't take into account as reality, as true things that matter. And regarding the soul, there is far more that we don't know than we know - except perhaps our own. And a first principle is the fact of our tremendous ability of self-deception.
I think there's a reason Christ said "You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free."

I wish I knew how to multi-quote......

Rus, mate, it is a frequent occurrence in mental health services to meet people who think we don't know our bums from our breakfasts. Please bear in mind that most people using our services do so on a voluntary basis, albeit often at the insistence of other people who know them well and care about them. And most people using mental health services never need to be in hospital. Also chemicals are not the only tool we can use.

As for your hypothetical Christian Scientist he has the right (as does everyone) to refuse any medical intervention.

However, we do have recourse to the Mental Health Act which allows us to detain people in hospital and give them medication against their wishes if they a) have a mental illness and b) are a danger to themselves or others. In the UK being a danger to yourself includes refusing treatment which would lead to a deterioration in mental health - this frequently happens in the case of bipolar disorder (manic depression) which, if untreated, inevitably becomes worse with disastrous consequences for the sufferer. People experiencing the "high" of bipolar disorder do not feel ill and reject any suggestion that they are ill. They feel tremendous, full of energy and brilliant ideas. In the early stages this is not a problem to them or the people they are in contact with: they are talkative, very sociable and entertaining and super-productive. As their "highness" escalates (which it will, if untreated) they become more and more disinhibited and their speech content will get them into serious trouble. Disinhibition also affects sexual behaviour and can lead to very risky behaviour. Talkative becomes chaotically garrulous, productivity becomes impossible due to inability to focus, ideas become grandiose and delusional, and sociability is replaced by extreme irritability with the "slowness" of everone else. When these people are brought to hospital by despairing family or the police (they don't do so of their own accord) they are very antipathetic to all treatment. Ugly scenes of physical restraint and forced medication are not uncommon.

MickeyTong
19-08-2014, 01:35
It would appear that you believe that it doesn't matter what a patient believes, as long as it "makes him happy" and you can conduct your physical treatment, that beliefs are by definition not true, or don't matter. I don't believe that. I think that if a thing is true it matters. I think that if there ARE such things as demons, for instance, then such things can affect a patient whether he believes in them or not, and especially if he doesn't. I believe that spiritual realities, like physical realities, are objective. If what I believe is true, then your treatment must very often be incomplete, and sometimes even harmful, by offering a wrong treatment for the problem, and having the patient think and hope it is the right thing, and so not seek treatment that would really help. So obviously, you have a strong incentive, related not to what is true but to the sense of purpose you now have to continue doing what you do, to want to believe that what I believe isn't true, and to deny it any way you can.

It does matter what a patient believes if those beliefs are delusional or dysfunctional. People with schizophrenia can have delusional beliefs which seriously detrimental to their wellbeing. People who were chronically abused during childhood can have beliefs which perpetuate self destructive behaviours. People with anxiety disorders have erroneous beliefs which reinforce their anxieties. Yeah, Rus, beliefs do matter for mental health.

Beliefs about religion are really not within our remit. It is not our job to tell anyone that their problems come from following the wrong religion or no religion.

Certainly, I'm aware that treatment has limitations. Some people have a compendium of complex needs, some of which cannot be addressed by health workers. People have employment problems, accommodation issues, difficulties with the activities of daily living, legal problems, custody and access to their children. Which require specialist expertise which health workers do not have.

As do spiritual problems. Patients with religious beliefs are encouraged to contact their specific advisers and counsellors. I have had patients who have insisted that I do not understand their "spiritual depression", their "Slough of Despond. OK....so why are they (voluntary patients) talking to me and not someone from their church?

Currently we (the team I'm part of) are working with a woman who insists that she is the victim of "demonic assault" and that demons are responsible for her rapid mood swings and un-Christian thoughts she has. To her the non-believing staff cannot possibly understand this. And the Christians among the staff don't go to the "right" church.

rusmeister
19-08-2014, 07:24
I wish I knew how to multi-quote......

Rus, mate, it is a frequent occurrence in mental health services to meet people who think we don't know our bums from our breakfasts. Please bear in mind that most people using our services do so on a voluntary basis, albeit often at the insistence of other people who know them well and care about them. And most people using mental health services never need to be in hospital. Also chemicals are not the only tool we can use.

As for your hypothetical Christian Scientist he has the right (as does everyone) to refuse any medical intervention.

However, we do have recourse to the Mental Health Act which allows us to detain people in hospital and give them medication against their wishes if they a) have a mental illness and b) are a danger to themselves or others. In the UK being a danger to yourself includes refusing treatment which would lead to a deterioration in mental health - this frequently happens in the case of bipolar disorder (manic depression) which, if untreated, inevitably becomes worse with disastrous consequences for the sufferer. People experiencing the "high" of bipolar disorder do not feel ill and reject any suggestion that they are ill. They feel tremendous, full of energy and brilliant ideas. In the early stages this is not a problem to them or the people they are in contact with: they are talkative, very sociable and entertaining and super-productive. As their "highness" escalates (which it will, if untreated) they become more and more disinhibited and their speech content will get them into serious trouble. Disinhibition also affects sexual behaviour and can lead to very risky behaviour. Talkative becomes chaotically garrulous, productivity becomes impossible due to inability to focus, ideas become grandiose and delusional, and sociability is replaced by extreme irritability with the "slowness" of everone else. When these people are brought to hospital by despairing family or the police (they don't do so of their own accord) they are very antipathetic to all treatment. Ugly scenes of physical restraint and forced medication are not uncommon.
Hey, Mick,
(I'm trying to cover both your posts now, FTR)
I certainly don't mean to suggest that you "don't know your bum from your breakfast". Nor do I think you use only physical treatment (I wasn't even limiting treatment of the body to chemical stuff - I don't know a lot about the details of your work - I'm "metacogniting" - thinking about the very concept of any such treatment from a philosophical point of view.

So as I said, you deal in exceptions relative to the mass of normal humanity, which is what I have largely been talking about. But even when we talk about treating the genuinely mentally ill, there are basic facts, among which is that if a person has acwrong view of the world, they will misunderstand some of their data and experience. A "Flat-Earther" can function fine, for instance, most of the time, but when his theory affects anything practical that he deals with, he's going to be in error about certain things because he has an error in his undertanding of the world to begin with. I think this is true of anybody, in any profession.

You speak about "beliefs in religion not being within your remit". I am not talking about "beliefs in religion". I am saying that a particular worldview is TRUE, whether any of us have that view or not, that the world came about in a definite way, and not in many ways, to each according to his beliefs, and that there is objective truth about the nature of the universe, the nature of man, and his purpose in life. And if someone is wrong about that nature in their worldview, errors are going to spring up in their dealings with the world, our fellow man, and even our understandings of ourselves. If demons, again, really exist, and really could be a cause or contributing factor of what you are dealing with both you and your patient don't believe in them, then your treatment is going to be in error to some greater or lesser degree. This is simple logic. If a thing is true, then the logical consequences follow. Therefore all spiritual approaches are most certainly wrong, because the sources of aid you refer them to, with their mutually exclusive contradictions in worldview, cannot possibly all be right.

The woman you are dealing with may be right. Although I cannot say for sure, it seems possible to me. But the germaine point is that, without the truth over whether demons exist or not, and what should be done to deal with them of they do, you can't treat a case, and this is one where the question is raised. Demons don't usually openly advertise, in my own relatively limited knowledge about them. Awareness of them as such, and not something else, like mere epileptic fits, could normally only arise in situations where both the illness and the cure are stark, where a person says or does things that humans couldn't normally do or know, and where the spiritual cure is stark and immediate. Thus, such cures would fall into the category of miracles. We understand miracles to be special acts of God's grace that, being themselves outside the natural order, are not subject o experiment, observation or data collection. Human action requesting miracles would have to be done by people in a radically right attitude towards God. That's why you don't have medical compendiums on how to deal with them.

But your starting assumption is that they do not really exist. If they ARE merely a product of human imagination, "will-o'-the-wisps", then your approach is logical and as good as you can do. But if they are NOT, then your treatment is abandonment at best to you-know-not-what. (FTR, I do not limit spiritual problems and cause to demons. They are just an easier external example to bring up.)

So everything comes down to the main question of life: "What is truth?". In our time, people try to avoid dealing with that question altogether, and so we are perhaps the least philosophical generation of humans in history. We are so proud of our science, but are too ignorant to be aware of the shame we ought to feel over our lack of philosophy. I blame our wholly unphilosophical philosophy departments, myself.

Fantastika
21-08-2014, 04:15
I'm listening up, Fantastika! Common denominator......hmmmm. It can't be Prozac, because there are depressed teenagers all over the world who take Prozac without going postal at school.


Well, you're getting closer. But for someone whose profession was founded by a cocaine addict (Sigmund Freud), which encouraged the psycho-analyst to have sex with patients as "therapy" in the 1950's, which adopted "therapies" of electro-shock in the 1960's (brain-scrambling), which hailed pre-frontal lobotomies (cutting out a part of the brain) in the 1970's and 1980's, "deep-sleep therapy" in the 1990's (putting a person to sleep for a week) and now has massively prescribed psychotropic drugs to millions of children, helping drug companies to $100's of $billions, while ruining the lives of millions of children, stunting their growth and intelligence, the real effects of what they cause is easy to deny. They cause social chaos, then their "treatments" cause more social chaos.

No wonder people in the US are becoming so stupid - raised on Ritalin and prozac, and klonopin, and who knows what else in the psychiatric drug stew fed to innocent American children. Few of these drugs have been studied as to their long-range effects. And what drug company making $10 billion a year on a drug is going to want to know the truth, if that truth cuts into their giga-normous profits?

Psychiatry does not have a moral code, or even a set of ethics. It keeps changing its basic definitions, as if it doesn't have a clue about anything it professes to be expert at. What was once "mentally ill," became "schizophrenia," became "manic-depressive," now it's "bi-polar." And the psychiatrist's understanding of schizophrenia is zero, zip, nada, while their "treatment" simply locks in the problem.

In the Nazi era, psychiatrists were instrumental in instituting a system of identifying, notifying, transporting, and killing hundreds of thousands of mentally ill and "racially and cognitively compromised" individuals in settings ranging from centralized psychiatric hospitals to prisons and death camps.

The truth about the school shooters may be a little hard for a psychiatrist to stomach. It has to do with a group of people who declare they are here to "help," who do not see the consequences of their actions, because they do not have a set of ethics, let alone a moral code.


Maybe the common denominator is the easy availability of firearms in the US and the "Die Hard", "High Noon" individualist maverick "Gunsmoke" culture which glorifies superior firepower as the solution to all problems.


Right. Guns don't shoot themselves. Guns are shot by people - mentally ill people. Shooting a gun at someone is the result of years of miseducation and mis-therapy. There are far more instances of guns saving people from thieves, robbers, rapists, murderers and other criminals, than of guns being misused.


Or maybe it's the US antipathy towards socialised health care: these kids and their families can't afford access to effective mental health care.


Oh the "kids", oh the "CHILLLLLDRENNN" oh the poor *children*. (Gag a maggot). "Effective - mental health care," that's an oxymoron. I love our new Obamacare socialized medical system. Dental work can now be afforded by only the rich. Premiums for everyone are doubled, some people pay over $1000/month for insurance. Everyone is forced to buy health insurance, if you don't buy it, you are classified as a criminal and your bank account is raided by the IRS.

The new Obamacare scheme gives a panel of mental health care "experts" the power to define a new disease and prescribe its mandatory treatment. Thus, they could define FPS ("Forum Posting Syndrome") much the same as they have defined SADS (Seasonal Affective Syndrome - you get depressed in winter and happy in summer) and force their newest psychotropic drug down the throat of anyone they deem to be an opponent of their power, at the same time collecting kickbacks from the drug manufacturers.

The new system is, I can see it working in microcosm my doctor's office - 1 doctor, 3 assistants and 4 secretaries dealing with the Obamacare paperwork. So instead of paying my doctor for a service, I am paying my doctor, 3 assistants, and 4 bureaucrats.

The *children* of illegal immigrants get "free" (paid by working taxpayers) treatment.


Have you considered the "deadly role" hospitals play in America? Infections acquired in hospitals kill 99 000 Americans every year. Let's ban hospitals!

Let's ban cars!

vossy7
21-08-2014, 09:13
Maybe we should have more tree hugging....while there are still some left in Moscow.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgMEPk6fvpg

Fantastika
21-08-2014, 10:01
Maybe we should have more tree hugging....while there are still some left in Moscow.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgMEPk6fvpg

Ah, when music had social relevance, instead of today's narcissistic rap-crap.

Uncle Wally
21-08-2014, 23:13
Seeking Death: 'Suicide Tourism' to Switzerland Doubles



http://www.cnbc.com/id/101936399