Merged Psychological conditions are illusory

Jonesboy said:
If you came to a workshop and expected results for your money I would have to tell you that it was the wrong approach and that you have to go with what you trust, for good or bad. A model that might help would be that of an anthropolgist in a tribal drug ceremony. If he went in looking for data and results, and saw it as panacea or treatment, he would get short shrift.
Click to expand...

So you have no evidence for your claims, okay dokey.

Just neofeudian snale oil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abreaction
 
Safe-Keeper said:
I find this claim of his disturbing, too.
Click to expand...


It should disturb you that even sadness is pathologised, but it doesnt, because of your belief in psychology.

You might want to ask whether you would be disturbed by hours of sobbing, flashbacks, shaking, screaming, experiences of dying and if and why you would try to bring someone out of it.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Cancer is natural. Losing consciousness from uncontrolled bleeding is natural. Landslides and earthquakes and tsunamis and asteroid impacts are natural. Natural, contrary to popular belief in alternative circles, is not a synonym for good or beneficial.

One more time, since you seem to have missed it the first time;):
I'm sure you just accidentally missed it in all the posts in this thread, but it'd be nice if you could address it now. Thanks!

* Safe-Keeper keeps waiting for that supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

Psychology says that suffering itself is abnormal. That's the difference. Psychology would treat cancer by pathologising or suppressing your feelings about it.

Oh yes, evidence. Evidence for what? We aren't talking baout cures and treatments. Most best work on this is by Grof, but try Wilbur and many others.
 
Last edited:
Jonesboy said:
I can understand how everything seems to make sense when we say "it's either normal or it ain't"
Click to expand...

Nope, your catharsis model is undemonstrated, just your assertion that there is some sort of efficacy.

And I don't use the label 'normal', so as usual you haven't read my posts before thinking your can critique them.

That hammer of your is a multipurpose tool.
 
You might want to ask whether you would be disturbed by hours of sobbing, flashbacks, shaking, screaming, experiences of dying and if and why you would try to bring someone out of it.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if I understand what you are trying to say here, but yes, I am disturbed when someone has a "PTSD attack" and exhibits one or more of these symptoms, and yes, in those situations I do my best to help the person suffering.

Jonesboy, I've told you this already, but you really, really need to back up your position better. Look at my parody thread about allergies -- did it convince you or did you just find it silly? You've stated your opinion over and over, for several pages, in several threads, but I have yet to see empirical, solid evidence there is anything to it.

I can understand how everything seems to make sense when we say "it's either normal or it ain't"
Click to expand...
No, it makes sense to us because we have the ability to feel empathy and don't want to see people suffer needlessly.

Psychology says that suffering itself is abnormal.
Click to expand...
Human values say that suffering itself is undesirable.

Fixed that for you.
 
Schrodinger's Cat said:
Apparently you didn't understand me. I was not claiming you said emotions are fiction. I was stating exactly what you say above, that what you think is fictitious is the idea that the symptoms of PTSD and emotions associated with it are unhealthy, or as I said, debilitating. That you think PTSD itself is fictitious.

Can you explain to me why you think beating your children, killing your spouse, or going around thinking your loved ones are secretly wishing you dead are things that we should encourage and not treat as unhealthy behavior that should be corrected?

Can you explain why you think I should have encouraged my husband and told him it was both correct and healthy for him to accuse me and other people close to him of secretly being out to get him, hating him, etc? Why I should have validated and encouraged his paranoia and emotional instability?


ETA. Hmmm, not sure why there's a big smiley face on my post, I didn't knowingly put it there.
Click to expand...

PTSD is a medical masquerade for real experiences.
Anyone can get Flashbacks and feelings of death and violence if they ra eplunged in an unresolved violent experience.

It's the suppression of these experiences that cause their violent eruption in inapproppriate places, eruptions that only add to the unresolved trauma. LSD work was carried out on war vertans with great success. now patholgised, similar work in a non-medical setting can be found in Grofs workshops.

A person can enter a trauma in their own heads if allowed to do so, and cathartically relive it. This natural response is always suppressed.
 
Dancing David said:
Nope that is your mischaracterization, and funny, I never saw the term suffering, must be more or your moral imposition.

You have consistently made strawmen throughout, funny that.
Click to expand...

At a lecture given by a neuroscientist two months ago, I was told that suffering itself is the problem.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
Your information and experience base is insufficient. Your statement above is inconsistent with observable reality.

Most woo I find mildly annoying and sometimes amusing, but somehow I find your brainless pivvle highly offensive.

Goodbye. Welcome to ignore.
Click to expand...


There are no facts to show that any experience declared by psychology to be pathological is pathological. You might want to consider that long and hard.
 
BStrong said:
Last night I had group at Swords to Plowshres.

I brought a print of JB's op.

Consensus opinion of individuals in thew group with PTSD, not doctors.

Jonesboy is so wrongthat we have to find a new word to describe it.
Click to expand...

you have come across a statistical cluster. There are others.
 
Jonesboy said:
There are no facts to show that any experience declared by psychology to be pathological is pathological. You might want to consider that long and hard.
Click to expand...
Define pathological.

More specifically, define pathological in such a way that we can identify what is and is not pathological. Finally, to make sure we're comparing apples to apples, please relate your definition of pathological to a psychology based definition, including telling me what the latter is.
 
Last edited:
Jonesboy said:
I'm careful of langugae. Hyperventilation is never treatment, even when it is mechanically initiated or controlled in some way.
Click to expand...
Then I don't see how your claims about hyperventilation being positive are useful.
It's easy to enter an altered state where deep experiences can emerge productively. Some people don't need triggers, but we provided triggers.
Click to expand...
This is the same sort of language I was talking about in the previous post; it's merely rearranged. Instead of saying "can" you're saying "it's easy to". But this isn't good enough. Psychology and psychiatry have success cases. You're rallying against the entire paradigm. I need to be able to get something that can compare the two before I'm convinced of where you stand on the dangerous fraud to convincing paradigm shift spectrum.

As it stands, you don't look all that different from the phenomena of faith healing.
My personal approach was to be wary of someone looking for treatment and cures. We offered none and no figures were kept.
Click to expand...
Then what's the point? If you turn people around who are looking for treatment and cures, how do you know you're not simply filtering out the people who need help? If all you're promising is a positive experience, what's the difference between what you offer and a good book?
The best approach is to maintain a positive view of all of one's experiences, and to be sober and responsible about the vigor of the journey they find themselves on.
Click to expand...
This is a useless statement. Some people maintain a positive view of their experiences, and some don't. Those who aren't, you get to maintain aren't using "the best approach". But it's not an approach. You can't simply change your view of things so easily.
Workshop participants always claim their process as their own, and sharing was always postive and enriching. All we provided was the trigger.
Click to expand...
Same could be said for reading a good book.
As far as I am aware it is one of the most powerful non-psychological approaches, far outstripping any of those given by psychology.
Click to expand...
This is not new information. You're simply telling me in different words that you're convinced you're right. I already knew that. Are you trying to assure me you're right?

Might I remind you. You're a random internet guy.
If you came to a workshop and expected results for your money I would have to tell you that it was the wrong approach and that you have to go with what you trust, for good or bad.
Click to expand...
I don't understand. You're saying that if I payed you because I expected results, then it's the wrong approach. But if I payed you because I trusted you, you'd take my money.

Surely you don't mean trusting that I'd get results, else that would be an expectation. So, you mean trusting you for what exactly?
 
Jonesboy said:
It should disturb you that even sadness is pathologised, but it doesnt, because of your belief in psychology.

You might want to ask whether you would be disturbed by hours of sobbing, flashbacks, shaking, screaming, experiences of dying and if and why you would try to bring someone out of it.
Click to expand...

Some pay good money to experience that.
 
Jonesboy said:
PTSD is a medical masquerade for real experiences.
Anyone can get Flashbacks and feelings of death and violence if they ra eplunged in an unresolved violent experience.

It's the suppression of these experiences that cause their violent eruption in inapproppriate places, eruptions that only add to the unresolved trauma. LSD work was carried out on war vertans with great success. now patholgised, similar work in a non-medical setting can be found in Grofs workshops.

A person can enter a trauma in their own heads if allowed to do so, and cathartically relive it. This natural response is always suppressed.
Click to expand...

This Grof?

Stanislav Grof is one of the most important pioneers in the scientific understanding of consciousness.
He and his wife, Christina, have contributed both to its intellectual and experiential understanding
through their work with Holotropic Breathwork." -Deepak Chopra

Some endorsements are worth less than others.
 
[/lurk]


A person can enter a trauma in their own heads if allowed to do so, and cathartically relive it. This natural response is always suppressed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a cop shooting his cop wife in the face with her Glock and then blowing his own brains out through the back of his head with two (2) Glocks in his mouth seems pretty cathartic. I'm sure he felt much better after that.

But I'll never get to play another game of chess with him, so I guess I'm the one who suffers.


[lurk]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom