nutrino,

this critique will sound harsh, I don't mean you ill will, but what a sorry excuse...

I have heard that response so many times.

the authoritarian Marxists have used the same excuse, that the dictatorship of the proletariat will end and will have utopia. of course we know (have a large suspicion at any rate) that would not have happened.

the Landmark apologists you have railed about have used a similar excuse. rightly, IMHO, you said that because the system runs on money, that it won't change.

"there's still a lot we don't know."

how much benefit of the doubt do we give people? infinite amounts, as long as they reassure us?

I take the opposite tack, that we already know how the way to at least try to help people in distress.

give them loving, kind, warm, environments, attempt to understand them. surround them with loving, kind, warm, environments and allow them to help each other. do not coerce.

Quote
nutrino
your quality of care will vary [b:d473ce6d70] radically [/b:d473ce6d70] depending on your economic position and your relationship with this sytem, and how well you know how to use the system to your best advantage. DSM-IV has an almost Talmudic set of distinctions which serve the needs of the insurance industry, as that industy demands precise classifications and precise protocols, ofthen these are far from a perfect match with the patient's reality...

the DSM [i:d473ce6d70]creates[/i:d473ce6d70] (subjective) reality. I wager as many people accept the DSM unquestionably as accept the Bible or Koran unquestionably. they may not accept the specific diagnosis but they do not treat the DSM itself as simply, a book, in the way that many people accept the Bible or Koran as, simply, a book.

and I want to say that I have noticed that you have ignored my talking about my observations about the history and nature of psychiatry as not simply a medical, but a social and legal, institution.

please, BTW, don't take this as an attack, I don't mean it as one.

just for once, though, I would like to hear, "you make good points, I have no argument with them, I accept them."

Quote
Acid Reindeer
just for once, though, I would like to hear, "you make good points, I have no argument with them, I accept them."

The truth, whatever that should be taken to mean, is complex and elusive. It's a Roshamon (as in the Kurosawa movie) problem. What the truth [b:f4d8e1e396] is [/b:f4d8e1e396] may vary over time, i.e. the best good faith estimate by reasonable minds as to the nature of reality. The reasonable 19th century person inhabited a totally different perspective on [b:f4d8e1e396] the truth [/b:f4d8e1e396] than an early 21st century person. Mental health issues are culture bound, there is no way they cannot be. However, they are not mono culture bound... there are overlapping institutional interests, personal values, etc.. that make the psychological helping professions anything but homogeneous monoliths... I think we'd be painting ourselves into an epistemological corner by insisting that there is an omnipotent "them" sitting in a hidden bunker directing human events from afar, rather there are varying diffuse centers of power, interest, intention that may cooperate or conflict or go off on their own tangents... it is too easy, and perhaps emotionally satisfying to impute that there is one great maw that indifferently chews everyone up and spits them out in the same way... although it is all too possible, in the wrong circumstances, to becomes labelled, classified, and objectified into a numerical code designated "it" that passes through the system... sometimes it takes great ingenuity to obtain help without simultaneously being objectified, and that is a failing of the system we have to work our way beyond.

nutrino,

a NPR-style mindnumb discussion has no appeal to me. I don't get paid for the word, you know.

simply, the question of psychiatry's monolithic nature remains a side issue and relatively irrelevant except as fodder for an (as I said) NPR-style wordfest.

the question of whether or psychiatry hurts or helps more (and I don't think of as a much of a question, but others do) remains more relevant. and let me just say that the burden of proof rests on them.

The evidence is that, for all of its imperfections, our society finds value in it, or more value in doing it than not doing it. Collectively we may be dumb, but we're not THAT dumb. You can have a real good or real bad experience of anything and [b:b0e54ea248] overgeneralize [/b:b0e54ea248] from that. The brain is hard wired to be an [b:b0e54ea248] overgeneralizing machine. [/b:b0e54ea248] The intelligent brain forms primordial generalizations then goes back and trims out the crap. The fucked up brain stays locked into overgenralizations. I do observe that a lot of celeb opinionators remain at the level of overgeneralization. A good shrink helps his or her patient make nuanced analyses instead of leaping headlong into dogmatic absolutes. This is why so many cults and LGATs can't think their way out of a paper bag. They are trapped inside of dogmatic, absolutist, hard either/or livestock chutes for thought processes. All X's are Y's, and therfore Z's... because it is thusly written. When psychiatry falls into this mindset, it can be just as deranged as the weirdest cult. The derangement arises from map/territory confusions. A good shrink nreed to have the best possible maps, then be smart enough to understand that the map is only an oversimplifed representation of an infinitely more complex cluster of processes... not everyone is cogent enough to see that.

society values lots of things.

back to your tip on overgeneralization, most people have not themselves gone through or witnessed for themselves psychiatric abuse like electroshock or forced institutionalization that causes trauma.

rather than overgeneralizing the fact that this goes on, they exclude. I simply don't deny that certain unpleasant scene occur and all but demand (if I had that power to demand it, I would) that they no longer continue.

perhaps you could think of me not as antipsychiatry but anti-abuse, anti-torture. one variety of abuse takes place in psychiatric institutionalizations and happen invisibly, in terms of the media, in terms of daily discourse.

from my perspective, coercive psychiatry already engages in cult-like denial of reality. it denies that negative stimuli, from forced institutionalization to dehumanization to the grim conditions of the psych wards and institutions themselves, can not cause negative consequences. to give just one example.

I also would like to point out that cult members frequently agree that they "deserved" or "needed" the treatment meted out to them by the cult.

only after they break out of the cult's belief system would they consider their treatment abusive.

if you buy the ideology of psychiatry you can easily rationalize its actions. I have a hunch that those people who go into the field of psychiatry tend to agree with that ideology, reinforcing it.

I think I just adequately explained a few of the ways in which mainstream psychiatry resembles cults.

apart from the fact that I recognized my experience in McLean as very similar to some of the stories told by cult survivors. jargon, ideology over person, all there.

you may reject some of my beliefs. respect, however, that I have the perspective of a abuse survivor standing up for other abuse survivors. if you have trouble seeing it that way, visualize the ideal, how you would like to get treated in a situation of extreme distress. then compare this to the current reality. that should bring you 'round.

provided you can accept that current reality does not always and indeed should not always prevail. if you can't, you cannot imagine a better world. and without imagining one, we cannot have one.

Quote
nutrino
When psychiatry falls into this mindset, it can be just as deranged as the weirdest cult.

I find that I am quoting myself. A bad sign indeed.

Yes, I agree that institutions that have absolute power and social authority are ripe to "go Zimbardo" ... as in the notorious Zimbardo experiment ... the dangers are there whether the context is framed as [i:52dfc5dfe1] cult [/i:52dfc5dfe1] or framed as [i:52dfc5dfe1] institution [/i:52dfc5dfe1] ... the dynamics of the context are what we must pay attention to... Are there dramatic imbalances of power ? Can authority figures be challenged ? Are control rituals practiced for their own sake ? Are the authority figures people who could not function in a well observed environment ? Is public scrutiny caerfully avoided or denied ? Are there sacred texts that are considered definitive and incontestible ? And so on. Definitely a recipe for a freakshow.

Hi, I'm a former Scientologist. I'm currently under the Scientology status of 'wog', which means I'm not active, I've returned to the normal world. 'wog' stands for 'worthy oriental gentleman', and as I'm part asian, I get the joke, although others may not.

To respond to some of the statements made in the forum, I thought I'd make a comment.

First of all, I wonder if some of the bloggers are merely making flaming comments just to be spiteful. You know who you are, if that's the case, and I won't require a response from you.

I gather from some of the blogs that Scientology's claims and terminology can seem outmoded, and even their past can seem jaded, and the 'players in the game' may look or actually be antithetical to their stated causes and ideals.

In point of fact, you are probably right. In most if not all endeavors, for example, finding the cure for polio, a lofty goal no less important than any claim made by Scientology or any other religion or invention, there is the element of human nature.

Again in the case of the search for the polio vaccine, if you google the history, you'll find that the chief 'inventor/doctor' who received the Nobel prize (I heard this on talk radio) was apparently upset enuff by his team that he failed to acknowledge them in his speech (scandal!), and later on many scientists felt that his vaccine was the 'inferior' medicine, and as a result, developed a newer vaccine. There was also the public concern later on that his version of the vaccine actually could cause polio in some innoculees, if that's a word. I'm sure to the team who felt miffed by their leader, this was a serious matter and no joke. They spent much of their professional careers or efforts on this only to be snubbed at the Nobel conference? Hindsight is 20/20.

I and others who care, for whatever reason, can probably choose to debate each point made in this topic... For example,

"Is that it? Is Scientology for people who don't learn sufficiently fast? For those who stayed behind in school? " was quoted by 'upsidedownnewspaper'.

Here is a rebuttal. I found this statement made in a forum discussing SSRI's... [www.extremefitness.com]

"luggaguy
November 13th, 2006, 08:06 PM
Im about to take some adderall to study for a final I have in 2 days. My buddy hooked me up with some 20 mg extended release. Im not trying to pull the 'allnighter' so he recomended to open the capusle, chew or crush about 1/2 the balls in the cap. That way I can take 10 mg, since I took it once 4 yrs ago my tolerance is very low. That should work, if not Ill take the rest. Has anyone tried this method? How long did it last? Thanks
Nastynav000
December 29th, 2006, 03:43 PM
i took it to study for a busy week of finals!! was able to pull 4 A's on my finals exams and a A on a 10 page paper all in the course of 3 days!! adderoll is a life saver! and i dont have ADD or ADHD"

So, if you're saying that people aren't interested in being more awake and able to study more, well maybe you aren't, but other people apparently are, enuff to take prescribed ampi's when they shouldn't. They're professional career is more important than their health. Nuff said there.

So the pendulum swings both ways.

So here's another thinker for you. On Barbara Walter's special on Heaven and NDE's, and i'm paraphrasing heavily, so apologies. A women was interviewed who had a near death experience. She claimed to have gone to Heaven and back. The experience was more real to her than life itself. Because of her NDE, she has achieved a change in lifestyle, how she treats others, what her life's goals are, and feels much better about her life, her existence, and towards her fellow man. I will assume she's probably even less inclined to be prejudiced or spiteful to others. Who knows.

Then, BW interviewed a physician/psych, not sure which exactly, who stated that what she probably experienced physically was the brain shutting down as she was dying, from lack of oxygen or organ support, (she did flatline I believe. At least, that's what I was led to believe), and the brain's inhibitive systems let go and her brain 'flooded' with memories and enuff endorphins/seratonin/dopamine or whatever to cause her to see the visions and experience the feelings she did, beyond what humanly normal.

First of all, I hope I go that way. Small comment aside there.

Then, Barbara TOLD THIS WOMAN the prognosis of the doctor. The woman looked very upset by that statement, and adamantly refused to believe that it was just her brain malfunctioning, and that it was her dream come true, that she saw heaven. It was too real for her to discount as merely a bad trip. So, to each their own. I'm an old Star Trek /Tolkien/D&D/SF Fan. I like to believe in the supernatural. Helps me sleep bettter at nite. I'm sure the OT 3's sleep just fine too.

Outmode tech: Ben Franklin believed that electricity was a liquid. I read his recent biography. He's considered the 'inventor' of electricity, although he isn't. Technically, his discovery of electricity revolves around discovering that electricity likes to flow from/ to a pointed object more than a flat/rounded object, and that lightning is a form of electricity. Also, it's widely believed that lightning struck the kite. Impossible, his poor grandson/nephew I forget which would have been killed. Think about holding a wet string with wet hands in a rainstorm. Lightning would need much less reason than that to slam you. For a good example of lightning watch the Mythbusters on cable. I love their lighting tests, like the guy on a phone. Boom!

So, what's my point? Well, let's discount Ben Franklin as a quack for his outdated ideas. I don't think there were any electron microscopes back then, so can you really blame him? Kudos to him for even thinking it up, I say.

And do we really want to argue with someone with an NDE that she was just hallucinating? Yeah, let's bust her bubble! Maybe we should all hallucinate like that. Might just make the world a better place.

Some bloggers have asked what has Scientology done for us, "lately"? Well, how about looking at the copyright dates on the books and articles released by LRH. They're circa 1950+. Recently there have been scientific studies done about prenatal memory. The math says 1990-1950=40 years ahead of his time. Now, I don't know the exact date scientists got together and decided to gather evidence or when they succeeded, I just picked 1990 out of a hat. I know it wasn't widely accepted when I was a teenager, and it certainly wasn't widely accepted in his day. How about the concept of self-help! Again look at the dates. In the 50's he started a self help revolution, which we still see in other self help gurus today. Tony Robbins, for example. EST, and other groups based on their experience with Scientology or Dianetics. Not saying all are good or bad, I'm sure that there's good and bad with these, as much as there's been good and bad with pope's, kings, religions, etc.
For example, many occidentals don't know that Buddhism has a long history of WAR!!! Think shaolin monks and the kung fu tv series. Who was Buddhism at conflict with? Confusionists, or whoever didn't agree politically or otherwise with buddhist ideals. Were the Buddhists the instigators? I don't know that much about that history, but I know they were often attacked for 'corrupting the views of the populace or the common people'. Confusionism is a royal philosophy. Buddhism was a grass roots effort with radical ideals.

So, in history there's not much that's new.

Also, somebody made a comment about the tone scale, and LRH thrusting 'that concept on us'. Actually, I recently found an old book published in the 20's and then republished in the 40's by Will Durant. I found the book enticing because the Dianetics book is dedicated to Mr. Durant. In the back of that book, IS the tone scale, proposed by Will Durant, the modern philosopher of the early 20th century. LRH merely extended it and named it.

From my point of view, LRH was a man who, like many engineers, sought to take the philosophies and knowledge of his time, and try to study and explain the human condition, and possibly even to help the cause of man.
I feel he followed in the footsteps of DaVinci, Ben Franklin (who was a freemason and anti-christian, even though his friend was the witch murderer, cotton mather, and who EDITED the declaration of independence from being a document of religious rhetoric to the timeless masterpiece of humanitarian ideals it is today.), Isaac Newton, who apparently 'invented calculus to bring glory to GOD', (please forgive the editorial) and others (Freud). Like Ben Franklin, LRH was nothing if not thorough. You will not find, I think, a more thorough body of empirical research and documentation into his search for relief from the 'human condition'.

Having personally experienced his counseling techniques, I can say I have yet to experience anything else quite as in depth. I lost my fiance a few years ago (suicide), and went to a psych to help me with the grief. It was interesting, but superficial, and short-lived. Needless to say I was not much relieved by it. I got more out of talking to friends.

However, my wife, who recently received some special therapy via her psychologist, went through a routine where she held 2 probes in either hand, which vibrated, and while recalling a past painful memory, was asked to 'envision or picture' a different or more pleasant outcome for the memory , which is a relatively new technique for psychologists. LRH, 1951 Philadelphia Doctorate Course Lectures, available now on DVD. Topic, Creative Processing, which of course is LRH's title for envisioning different outcomes for a painful experience. 1951....

Mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery.

p.s. My wife said it worked, she felt alot better... ;)

Here's to enjoying life...

lazyboy679:

So what you are saying is that even though you are a "wog"--you are a wog that still believes in LRH and his "technology"?

[b:6355a53380]Lazyboy679 : [/b:6355a53380]

Quote

LRH merely extended it and named it.

And most importantly to the Scientology we know and love today [b:6355a53380]franchised[/b:6355a53380][/color:6355a53380] it.

Quote

mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery

It is also called plagarism.

If I may ask since you seem to be so open about sharing and I sincerely thank-you for it how much did your enlightenment cost and is the reason you are classified as a "WOG" because you simply ran out of money but you are welcome back as soon as the second mortgage on your house comes through?

I don't mind questions and I'm certainly interested in keeping an open mind about Scientology or any other practice or philosophy as long as it takes into account appropriate moral values and doesn't preach hatred and violence towards others. Yes I'm well aware of Scientology's faux pax's in that area, as well as other practices. How about the recent African Christian preacher found guilty of burning adulterers? How about the Catholic priest in Wisconsin who was found guilty post mortem of killing 2 men? I don't condone harming anyone to save them. Do you?

As far as costs go, I don't see the relevance of discussing that in this posting. First of all, I paid very little, but that's just my circumstance. Other practices and religions charge more or less as they want to. I won't even discuss HMO's and the US healthcare industry.

The Catholic church and others are pretty notorious for some serious tithes, too. Let's just say that burial plots and a place in the Pope's heaven don't come cheap. How ethereal is that? Ever drive by a big cemetery? Think you'll be buried there one day?

Don't forget the Lutherans, which in the midwest is huge, and let's not forget the Democratic and Republican parties. How about the Televangelists? Ask me what I pay now in homeowners taxes. Now there's a crime in action. Representation my a$$.

You get out of something what you put into it, and you always pay to play. Welcome to the real world.

Lastly, about plagiarism. If a more recent discovery is found to imitate an older practice, then who plagiarizes whom? The mimicry comment was made regarding newer medical technologies mimicking LRH, who practiced it 40 years ago, who got some of it from someone else, who got it from someone else, and so on. It's hard to make that one stick.

The Wright brothers 'plagiarized' as well, only they discovered that what they plagiarized, loosely, wasn't working as well as they hoped. As in 12 feet off the ground don't cut it. So they improved it, and in seeking an improvement they found the flaws in the models of that time, and discovered a working formula for successful lift. If you think they built or designed their model from scratch, you'll be disappointed. And Santa Claus is really your Dad, too. Sorry.

And then Glenn Curtiss stole their concepts and adapted some improvements also suggested by others to outsell and out-engineer the Wright brothers, despite the patent infringement lawsuits waged by the aforementioned. By the time the dust settled the Wrights were wronged, and everyone else profited, so maybe they should have learned to get along better with others, in school.

What's my point? If you're standing still, you're falling behind. And just because it's copied and improved upon, or that it's old-school, doesn't mean it's not worth anything. History is a tough teacher, so crying about who plagiarized whom isn't going to solve your problems.

Find something that does.