GENIUS FORUMS

E,

Trevor is open about his bipolar. . .

IIRC, Trevor is schizophrenic, not bipolar.

Carl G wrote: Do you not find it interesting that the group is largely made up of people with tendencies to depression and other mental disorders?

I can see how you might find it interesting, but if you look at in in a certain light, it certainly isn't amazing or suprising. Consider the values of genius forum and philosophy/religion/guru's in general. They present the appearance of a possible escape from a significant source of mental difficulty/depression, namely: the values of the world - beauty, marriage, sex, love, academic and proffesional achievements, family, friends, emotions.

Philosophy, religion, Guru's, and genius forum give hope and a sense of meaning and purpose to those who feel worthless to the world.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Philosophy, religion, Guru's, and genius forum give hope and a sense of meaning and purpose to those who feel worthless to the world.

When I came here, I had hope and felt like I had a purpose in my life. Genius Forum just helps people see Reality. I don't see it giving hope or a sense of meaning.
.

(moving this post, as it would be better if it followed the next)

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:Philosophy, religion, Guru's, and genius forum give hope and a sense of meaning and purpose to those who feel worthless to the world.

When I came here, I had hope and felt like I had a purpose in my life. Genius Forum just helps people see Reality. I don't see it giving hope or a sense of meaning.

Well, for people who feel life is nothing but meaningless, nihilistic, despair - - - this place certainly can be a splash in the face in that it asserts the importance of having a sense of meaning and purpose, even if meaning is only relative. For instance, knowing absolute truths is knowing, in part, what reality means. And so people who feel life is meaningless but want to have a sense of meaning, can certainly look to this place for helping them find clarity and in that sense it cant help but been seen optimistically, as an opportunity. I guess maybe optimism is a better word than hope.

Hakuin said something about buddhism being a cliff against a sea of corrosive acid......something along those lines.

Solways likewise said something about his book being a seductive lure, to trick people into enlightenement.

It's unusual that a well adjusted person goes on a big search for the truth. And if he does, he wont be well adjusted for long I dont think.

Does a search for truth cause our disability, our does our disability cause our search for truth? I would say both.

It just gets worse and worse the more you know, until the ego has nothing left to hold onto. Truth is corrosive acid that destroys you.

-------------

Even if its true that Q, R, and S do not suffer great depression - they do seem to have a serious disability which causes them to not fit in. Their disability is their desire for rationality, order, sense.

And so on a forum like this one, it's only fitting that there is a rather strong polarization - between those on meds and those not. Those who are not, have a disability that sends them to the same place as the ones with real mental disabilities. We all get funneled to the bottom.

Cory wrote,

Even if its true that Q, R, and S do not suffer great depression - they do seem to have a serious disability which causes them to not fit in. Their disability is their desire for rationality, order, sense.

I disagree. I think their disability is severe Australianism. I don't find them to be very rational or sensible most of the time.

sschaula wrote:Cory wrote,

Even if its true that Q, R, and S do not suffer great depression - they do seem to have a serious disability which causes them to not fit in. Their disability is their desire for rationality, order, sense.

I disagree. I think their disability is severe Australianism.

What are the characteristics comprising Australianism?

Cory Duchesne wrote: What are the characteristics comprising Australianism?

Being upside down, the blood rushes to their head...

Dan Rowden wrote:

Personality disorder characterized by at least 3 of the following:

(e) little interest in having sexual experiences with another person (taking into account age);

This implies that part of the definition of being sane is wanting to have sex with people, which seems kind of bizarre at first, but got me thinking.

What psychiatrists are interested in is whether a person is emotionally healthy. Psychiatrists, I would maintain, are not interested in, and are not equipped to tackle the question of whether a person is intellectually healthy.

I don't think psychiatrists would recognise the idea of being intellectually healthy (which I may have just made up), meaning that you have a minimum of delusions, that you can and do think straight, that you are not lying to yourself and living a lie. It goes without saying that, by that definition, almost everyone on earth is (more or less) unhealthy, so that's not very helpful.

Psychiatrists deal with people who are not emotionally healthy; when they feel alienated and unhappy; when they are not well-adapted to their environment. In order to be emotionally healthy, you must be well adapted to your environment - you must fit into it - no matter what that environment might happen to be. And most people will find themselves in an environment that does not promote intellectual health. If you are interested in that, you will need to seek it out or create it on your own.

Seeking out intellectual health has implications which may be bad for emotional health. The psychiatrist whould rather you stay away from it.

.

Dan Rowden wrote:The primary problem with suicide is that you can't change your mind. But when you make a suicide pact with a lover, always let them go first, just in case.

Hahahah. Very good, Dan.

Hahahah


Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971

.

Carl G wrote:I'm starting to get the impression that just about everybody on this board (and several others I visit) is on disability and/or meds.

I find that amazing, but plenty of good advice available then, it seems, for any who need that sort of course corrector.

Kids want drugs - not hugs...

Tomas

DHodges said,

I don't think psychiatrists would recognise the idea of being intellectually healthy (which I may have just made up), meaning that you have a minimum of delusions, that you can and do think straight, that you are not lying to yourself and living a lie. It goes without saying that, by that definition, almost everyone on earth is (more or less) unhealthy, so that's not very helpful.

They do verify these things, and they will take note if you perform much worse than the average healthy person. If a person has too many delusions and a thinking disorder, and an impaired perception of reality, they will be diagnosed as schizophrenic.

In other words, the doctor does check your cognitive health, but will not be concerned about it until you deviate from what is considered normal. This is for practical reasons: he cannot lock up, treat or medicate all the masses.

.

I think you and DH are using different definitions of delusions. While he's talking about the ego, you're talking about severe illness.

At any rate, what I took from what he said was that the same symptoms with different processes behind them are quite different, really. That if one person has no interest in sex it might be because he recognizes that it is problematic. Another person could be on medication that deminishes their sex drive, and another could be a rape victim. Which is why mental illnesses all contain the disclaimer that it must interfere with your life in order to be considered an illness. The symptoms can be problematic and if they are, then this is a possible diagnosis...

I think you and DH are using different definitions of delusions. While he's talking about the ego, you're talking about severe illness.

We are not necessarily defining it differently. I did explain that the only reason a psyciatrist will not diagnose the delusion of the average person is because it is considered normal. But they will diagnose it if it is severe.

In other words, it is just a matter of degree.

I'm not so certain that it's "intellectually healthy" to avoid social interaction. Possessing healthy human relations facilitates neurogenesis, which in turn expands the capabilities of ones brain, allowing them to more easily adapt to different situations. Of course, on could counter that an increased capacity to deal with social interactions doesn't lead to the sort of thinking that is done in philosophical meditations and whatnot, but I'd in turn counter that we all exist in and depend upon society. If our brains aren't equipped to deal with the very real circumstances of our world, then we will face increased stress, and this hinders the brains capacity to create new cells which could be used for less functional meditations.

I see a lot of focus on this board in decreasing attachments, but I think we need to take a careful look at what exactly that means from a neurological perspective. When one desires social interaction they do so because they remember it making them happier. An active brain is a happy brain, or so it seems from scientific research into the subject. We enjoy social interaction because it forces our brain to consistently adapt and form new cells and connections to deal with the strange and varied behavior of other people. If we don't desire such interaction, then it is because we are tying negative associations to such behavior, and thus facing increased stress and inability to adapt to such situations. We are, in affect, decreasing our brains ability to function.

It's important to remember that the brain actually creates new cells when adapting to new tasks. Thus, a person doesn't need to have a philosophical brain or a social brain. They can have both, and will end up happier for it. There is some (rather recent) research that suggests the creation of new cells within the brains works as an anti-depressant. We are happy when our brains are adjusting to deal with new situations. Stress is a vicious cycle, because it hinders the creation of new cells within our brain, which in turn leads to more stress. It seems to me that in order to be healthy we should strive towards they ideal of the renaissance man. We've often heard it said "jack of all trades: master of none", but beyond simple time constraints, it doesn't seem that Jack needs to be incompetent at any task he seeks to apply himself. Either way though, Jack is going to be a damn happy fellow.

As for evidence to back up my claims: Article

Katy wrote:I think you and DH are using different definitions of delusions. While he's talking about the ego, you're talking about severe illness.

While the ego delusions are central and most important, people generally have dozens or hundreds (I'm guessing) of other delusions as well. Most people believe a lot of stuff that is just wrong, irrational or incoherent if you look at it closely. Superstition, religion and pseudo-science are everywhere.

It seems to me that people have a psychological need to have beliefs. Beliefs give the sense that you know how things work, and hence a sense of security. They need that sense of security to be emotionally healthy and happy. Living in doubt is stressful.

In the future, society will outgrow the need to believe in God. When that happens, people who talk to God will be considered insane.

But the religious society will get a lot worse before it gets better.

Shahrazad wrote:In the future, society will outgrow the need to believe in God. When that happens, people who talk to God will be considered insane.

But the religious society will get a lot worse before it gets better.

I used to think society would outgrow God, too, but now I'm not so sure. That's one resilient delusion right there...

Here is a start:

US Congressman Holds No God-Belief

"There is only one member of Congress who is on record as not holding a god-belief.

Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), a member of Congress since 1973, acknowledged his nontheism in response to an inquiry by the Secular Coalition for America."

but sadly

"If the number of nontheists in Congress reflected the percentage of nontheists in the population," Lori Lipman Brown, director of the Secular Coalition, observes, "there would be 53-54 nontheistic Congress members instead of one."

I'm afraid theism will be around as long as death is around. Life and consciousness (in the medical sense) are extremely powerful attachments that people simply don't want to lose.