When my crazy father actually lost his mind.
Ny times article. Sort of disagree in some manner with respect to the purpose of institutionalization here. If mental health were to cause some severe impairment with respect to the one's functioning, yes maybe it should seem the institution can be there to help treat ideally in the passing sense and hopefully neither be situated for the purpose of semi permanent housing. A number of reasons that are bothersome with respect to the idea of committing any individual for any semi permanent reasons based upon my perceptions of such:
Relinquishing legal power over one's self determination is a loss of right in capacity to decision making, and who supposedly better determines better one's health if not mental sanity? People can have varying levels of paranoia at times in their own lives and still be functioning fine. For instance, you hadn't need but turn on television (in this past decade) to see evidence of this at times, if playing up to personal insecurities weren't enough of a media cash cow at times. Then even a great logician/mathematician suffered from extreme bouts of paranoia. Goedel also had some environmental experience that might have had some associative trigger. Convinced that people were out to poison him, supposedly he refused to eat all but his wife's cooking. In the end, he likely died of malnutrition after his wife had passed away, but then he lived a long time anyways, and generally up to this point he were functioning well enough to do great work regardless. Then if you relate to something of past experience in having fled from Germany, its easy to sympathize with him regarding his mental health condition. If paranoia shouldn't cause problems with respect to everyday functioning like eating somewhere somehow, or being able to socialize have friends and what not, what sort of problem is that? There maybe lots that don't trust their governments for any number of reasons however rightly or wrongly, and secondly distrust in governments shouldn't be sacrosanct heresy, unless you live in a place like China right?
If you lived in China where infrastructure and facilities have been built around mental health professions, complaining about the authority of your government is enough to get you locked up in an institution. In the past, it seems institutions such as these could be reserved for the slighting offenses such as social disobediences...maybe owing to lack of functioning in the proper sense to a given society. This might have been biased more so with respect to women relative men. At least if a man were likely then not to be able to cope and were an excessive drinker, they could have had a support group of enablers surrounding them for their given impairments?
The problem with paranoia may relate to how one functions irrespective of subsequent actions. As much one could claim that thoughts and actions are separate vehicles in their own right. Not everyone angry to the extent of wanting to express their anger do so. Our minds and actions can be independent of one another, and it is why are legal systems differentiate actions versus intent, motives and anything else that attempt to link thoughts, behaviors and actions.
How we react to our circumstances could be some indicator with respect to the level of rationality that should be contained, but even then one suspects: is it such that those suffering more clearly from paranoia are impaired in some capacity to rationally question any number of circumstances which provide seeming contradictions with respect to irrational thoughts? At least if a man could function well and highly enough in world's of logic, it seems neither even the most rational of individuals could be removed solely from paranoid ideation, or if having considered artificial intelligence in fiction, even H.A.L wasn't immune from a inset paranoia based upon programmed instructions received. It seems at least considering paranoia there are probably two centers which counteract and resist one another in thought: one center as a means of self preservation, while another counters the others pull. Here, by example, running thoughts could amount to something of a checklist:
'Oh you are being foolish!' 'Has anything happened to you up to now?!' 'What make's you think this way?!' And so forth. It seems if something of rationalities dominance is pervasive enough, the idea of personal safety should seem born of all conditions of one's state prior. Thus, if one were in a situation where one's life were personally in danger for good reason and measure, it seems paranoia should be a life preserving mechanism, not presenting danger to oneself, but alerting one to the sense of environmental risks and dangers lurking. On the other hand, thoughts might get tripped up, chronic pain sufferers, for instance, tend to be more paranoid then those who don't suffer. This isn't without measure. Sometimes, the tendency of the human mind might be to associate physical pains with circumstances surrounding the individual, or this is to say, maybe its more difficult to avoid more so incidental events without knowing truly the causality in such associations. Then I think to at times popular urban folklore, entire groups of American's at times have held more common beliefs about their circumstances that should seem highly paranoid, but then given the Tuskegee experiments lingering only a few decades in the past could you blame them? Lastly if paranoia weren't okay with individual's don't hold your corporations and governments responsible for ever bit acting so cautiously the same with respect to their holdings of power and secrets. Much of your government runs on much paranoia and compartmentalization that should have its thinker's locked up for similar thinking: were they wrong for being paranoid?
Ny times article. Sort of disagree in some manner with respect to the purpose of institutionalization here. If mental health were to cause some severe impairment with respect to the one's functioning, yes maybe it should seem the institution can be there to help treat ideally in the passing sense and hopefully neither be situated for the purpose of semi permanent housing. A number of reasons that are bothersome with respect to the idea of committing any individual for any semi permanent reasons based upon my perceptions of such:
Relinquishing legal power over one's self determination is a loss of right in capacity to decision making, and who supposedly better determines better one's health if not mental sanity? People can have varying levels of paranoia at times in their own lives and still be functioning fine. For instance, you hadn't need but turn on television (in this past decade) to see evidence of this at times, if playing up to personal insecurities weren't enough of a media cash cow at times. Then even a great logician/mathematician suffered from extreme bouts of paranoia. Goedel also had some environmental experience that might have had some associative trigger. Convinced that people were out to poison him, supposedly he refused to eat all but his wife's cooking. In the end, he likely died of malnutrition after his wife had passed away, but then he lived a long time anyways, and generally up to this point he were functioning well enough to do great work regardless. Then if you relate to something of past experience in having fled from Germany, its easy to sympathize with him regarding his mental health condition. If paranoia shouldn't cause problems with respect to everyday functioning like eating somewhere somehow, or being able to socialize have friends and what not, what sort of problem is that? There maybe lots that don't trust their governments for any number of reasons however rightly or wrongly, and secondly distrust in governments shouldn't be sacrosanct heresy, unless you live in a place like China right?
If you lived in China where infrastructure and facilities have been built around mental health professions, complaining about the authority of your government is enough to get you locked up in an institution. In the past, it seems institutions such as these could be reserved for the slighting offenses such as social disobediences...maybe owing to lack of functioning in the proper sense to a given society. This might have been biased more so with respect to women relative men. At least if a man were likely then not to be able to cope and were an excessive drinker, they could have had a support group of enablers surrounding them for their given impairments?
The problem with paranoia may relate to how one functions irrespective of subsequent actions. As much one could claim that thoughts and actions are separate vehicles in their own right. Not everyone angry to the extent of wanting to express their anger do so. Our minds and actions can be independent of one another, and it is why are legal systems differentiate actions versus intent, motives and anything else that attempt to link thoughts, behaviors and actions.
How we react to our circumstances could be some indicator with respect to the level of rationality that should be contained, but even then one suspects: is it such that those suffering more clearly from paranoia are impaired in some capacity to rationally question any number of circumstances which provide seeming contradictions with respect to irrational thoughts? At least if a man could function well and highly enough in world's of logic, it seems neither even the most rational of individuals could be removed solely from paranoid ideation, or if having considered artificial intelligence in fiction, even H.A.L wasn't immune from a inset paranoia based upon programmed instructions received. It seems at least considering paranoia there are probably two centers which counteract and resist one another in thought: one center as a means of self preservation, while another counters the others pull. Here, by example, running thoughts could amount to something of a checklist:
'Oh you are being foolish!' 'Has anything happened to you up to now?!' 'What make's you think this way?!' And so forth. It seems if something of rationalities dominance is pervasive enough, the idea of personal safety should seem born of all conditions of one's state prior. Thus, if one were in a situation where one's life were personally in danger for good reason and measure, it seems paranoia should be a life preserving mechanism, not presenting danger to oneself, but alerting one to the sense of environmental risks and dangers lurking. On the other hand, thoughts might get tripped up, chronic pain sufferers, for instance, tend to be more paranoid then those who don't suffer. This isn't without measure. Sometimes, the tendency of the human mind might be to associate physical pains with circumstances surrounding the individual, or this is to say, maybe its more difficult to avoid more so incidental events without knowing truly the causality in such associations. Then I think to at times popular urban folklore, entire groups of American's at times have held more common beliefs about their circumstances that should seem highly paranoid, but then given the Tuskegee experiments lingering only a few decades in the past could you blame them? Lastly if paranoia weren't okay with individual's don't hold your corporations and governments responsible for ever bit acting so cautiously the same with respect to their holdings of power and secrets. Much of your government runs on much paranoia and compartmentalization that should have its thinker's locked up for similar thinking: were they wrong for being paranoid?
No comments:
Post a Comment