Peter H. Donnelly's Mental Health Blog

Rational and Irrational Control

2009-06-22T03:49:00.000-07:00

People who hear voices, sometimes experience rational control from the voices - meaning that the voices try to impose controlling reason, onto the voice hearer - telling the voice hearer what to think or do, or imposing questions. This can be caused or influenced, by the way that some psychiatrists, social workers, and mental health workers, have treated and related towards us. Sometimes the voice hearer will talk, or think, irrational and/or meaningless nonsense, to avoid the voices having this rational control, because as a coping-strategy, this often works, and is very effective. This is also why some psychiatric diagnosed people, sometimes mumble, talk, or shout out, irrational or meaningless nonsense.

Rational control, by others socially, can have the same affect, and also be a way of controlling or repressing the emotions, or more creative, artistic, scientific, or abstract thinking, and it is something that bad teachers and bad politicians try to do to us. There is also such a thing as irrational control, when madness or unreason dominates reason and logical free thinking, and rational and irrational control, can both be connected and related, or used separately or simultaneously against people socially. Rational and irrational control can both be used emotionally and intellectually against people too.

First of all, I want to look into whether the emotions are experienced first, before rational or intellectual thinking, as a lot of modern alternative psychological theories, tend to simply state that this is the case. It is also a view more widely held by some women than men, maybe because some men and women experience, or are told that they experience things very differently. It’s possible that neither the emotions, nor the rational mind or intellect, are experienced first, as what is experienced first, is fragmented, random, chaos. This is a bit too simple an explanation for me though, although I do believe there is some truth in it, but that the crux of the matter, is how raw experience is processed, which makes it primarily emotional or rational, or both.

I believe that experience comes first, before emotions and thought, as experience is a separate thing in itself, something encompassing the whole mind and being, and something spiritual and sensory. Experience comes first, then perceptions - the transforming or filtering of experience into emotions or thoughts - comes after.

I do not believe that most normal emotions and thoughts overwhelm people, as there are many subtle kinds of emotions and thoughts, and on the whole we can choose in what way, or to what degree, emotions and thoughts influence or affect us. The times where this is not the case, is if we are being threatened with violence, terrorised, and oppressed, abused or mistreated in some way, and then that choice becomes somewhat problematic or limited, especially if mutual hatred or anger is involved, as anger is a powerful emotion which can annihilate, limit, obscure, or distort feeling and especially thinking.

Irrational control, seeks to diminish all emotion and thought, to control people in a purely behaviourist way, by their instinctual reactions, and which is why I am opposed to pure behaviourism. In my opinion, pure behaviourism, is just another form of abuse, and it has no place in society or the modern mental health system.

Intrusive Thoughts

2009-06-18T04:29:00.000-07:00

Myself, two friends of mine, and some people I speak to over the Internet - either in a chat room, or on msn (one-to-one) messenger - all sometimes experience so-called intrusive thoughts, although some of us hear negative voices with it, and others just hear or sense (other) thoughts as intrusive, but not voices as such.

This begs the question of whether some social voices are experienced as intrusive, in the person’s social life, and what bearing this has upon internal intrusive thoughts in general. This could be due to a vulnerability to stress, and/or that the person has some intrusive, aggressive, or domineering people in their lives.

There is a tendency, for people of all political persuasions, to say that intrusive, negative, rude, and violent thoughts, are just our own conscious thoughts, which we are not being responsible for, but this view amongst especially the right-wing, but also amongst many cognitive therapists, and some psychiatric survivors, is outdated, and needs understanding from new perspectives and approaches.

One thing that makes me angry, and which I very much dislike about the Tories, is that they are one-sidedly obessesed with the view, that some people make excuses for their bad thoughts and behaviours. Firstly, this annoys me, because they say this, as if it is one group doing this in society, such as criminals, or voice hearers, when people in power and authority justify their bad behaviours in that way.

Secondly, it makes me angry, because the Tories are just ignorant, and do not appreciate, understand, nor realise, that everyone are somewhat influenced by their so social, environmental, and life-experiences. On the issue of responsibility and freewill, you can’t always be responsible and free, unless you understand how experiences have influenced you first.

Emotions and Catharsis

2009-06-18T04:23:00.000-07:00

A close friend of mine, asked me a few important questions about the emotions: Are emotions more to do with the past or the future? Are emotions more to do with the imagination or reality? Are emotions or thoughts experienced first?

The question as to whether the emotions, are more to do with the past or the present, are ideologically to do with whether a theory is a radical, or a more so-called modern mental health theory.

Radical theory tends to emphasise emotions, blocks, and catharsis or release, usually to do with releasing, the negative emotions of past traumatic events, such abuse, loss, or mistreatment. Whereas, so-called modern mental health theories of emotions, tend to focus on present negative emotions and treatment, and also focus on present, positive emotions, and self-control. So the answer to my friend’s first question, is often a case of "Who pays the piper, calls the tune".

The trouble with a lot of radical, or catharsis theories of emotions, is that they tend to be deterministic and mechanistic, fail to acknowledge that people release and cathart emotions when abusing or mistreating others, and they over-focus on releasing only negative emotions, and tend to state, that there is only one way of releasing negative emotions - either through sexuality, deep breathing techniques, primal screaming - or crying.

A person in the mental health chat room I frequent, gave the brilliant analogy of a battery, to which he said, that emotional well-being, all depends on how the positive emotions, connect to the negative ones, and that if you only focus on the negative ones - without a mutual connection between the positive and negative - then you get a dead battery.

The trouble with so-called modern mental health theory, is that they deny the reality, of past emotional pain and suffering, caused by traumatic events such as abuse, and force people to repress those things, in favour of dealing with simply present negative and positive emotions.

From personal experience, I have found times when I very much needed to release negative emotions, through crying, and which made me feel better afterwards, but I have also found, that I needed to focus on experiencing, and connecting, to positive emotions as well. These positive emotions then, were not simply released, but also stored, or had a good influence in my mind and/or memory, and connected to the negative emotions, in a way that enabled some kind of mutual reciprocity, and transformation. Both positive and negative emotions, can have a good influence, in increasing our sensitivity and awareness, of things like love, empathy, and compassion, and again, all depend upon how the negative connects to and is influenced by the positive, and vice versa.

I tend to think and believe, that the mind and emotions, think and feel in terms of association, or associative influences or links, and that present positive or negative emotions, can be influentially linked to past ones, and vice versa, although I realise that association theory is limited, and that associative feeling and thinking theory, historically paved the way for behaviourism in psychology, which I tend to dislike, because behaviourism objectifies and punishes people, with instinctual associative responses, and treats them like animals, without human potential for choices and change.

What I have discovered, about the emotions and thoughts, is that some things are linked by association, and some things aren’t - but that the links connect like road maps - in unusual and indirect ways, sometimes halted by blocks, and sometimes prolonged, distracted, or suspended by different winding paths and tunnels, where they link up, break off or divert in different directions, and then link up again.

This, and the battery analogy, is also how thoughts and emotions, are experienced first at different times, according to the situation and responses, and from individual to individual, and it is the more complex association theory I believe in, which is more truthful and accurate, from both experience and observation.

My Dinner with Andre

2009-05-02T06:59:00.000-07:00

I just watched the film My Dinner with Andre, about a long conversation, in a New York restaurant, between a playwright called Walter, and a theatre director called Andre, who has recently travelled to far-away places such as India. Their conversation is all about mysticism, and existentialism, versus science, and pragmatism, but there are some areas of consensus, between Walter and Andre.

Their conversation in the restaurant, is very dialectical, and to sum up their arguments very basically, the director says, that you have to escape from domestic routine, and from everyday meaning - transcend ordinary, mundane, superficial reality - and simply BE (what the playwright refers to as "pure being"). On the other hand, the playwright, says that he believes that purposefulness (doing or thinking things) is more authentic, and a basic part of the structure, of what it means to be a human being - to actually be doing things - conversations, thoughts, or actions.

The playwright says, that mysticism and magic, are based upon escapism and coincidences, but that science is based upon tests of reality, which can be repeated and verified. They both agree though, that science has magically provided the answers for everything, and turned people into unthinking, unfeeling, robots and machines.

The other thing the playwright said, was that mysticism, and believing in magical signs and symbols, was a way of avoiding, full, rational responsibility, or of avoiding actually doing things. The director, then said that doing things, and conforming to conventional roles, was a way of avoiding our true selves, thoughts, and feelings.

The director concludes, by saying that we are, most of the time, just being performers in our social roles, and not being our true or authentic selves. He seems to be saying in his conclusion, that we should deviate from, or subvert roles, and that roles are ephemeral with social and life-changes anyway.

What I love about this film, is that there are some good arguments on both sides, the odd humorous moment here and there, and some profound insights in it, and it really gets you thinking about a lot of things. I think it's a film that could change people's lives in some ways.

The Irrational and Holistically Meaningful Nature of Triggers

2009-04-29T04:03:00.001-07:00

I recently spoke to a friend on the phone, who lives about thirty five miles from me, and my other friend Luke, and who says he can’t see us lately, because of his mental health problem. He had said to me before, in a previous phone conversation, that he is avoiding drinking hot drinks, and hot food, because he believes that the heat from them, is affecting and damaging his brain. When he avoids hot drink and foods he feels fine, and so I told him to do what works for him, and to do what he wants to do.

I asked this friend what symptoms he gets, when he is drinking hot drinks and eats hot food, and he said that he felt less alive, and basically that he felt more empty. I asked him if he felt empty of emotion, or energy, and he said he felt empty of memory, and confirmed to me that his memory was going away. I said to him, that this could be due to the fact, that he was repressing painful or complex memories, which most people do, and which is in some ways necessary for staying sane, and survival. Some exploration and catharsis of bad memories is good, but self-repression isn’t all bad, and can also be very useful; and helpful.

After I said, that I didn’t really want to label him, I then suggested that he might have a form of OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder), in terms of the avoidance behaviour (people with OCD repeat or avoid harmless things, or they fear bad things will happen to themselves or their loved ones, if they don’t avoid the triggers), but he said it wasn’t a compulsion, as he has stopped drinking hot tea and hot food altogether.

I explained to this friend that, I wasn’t patronising him, before on the phone, when I said that his theory about hot drinks and food, was as good as any other theory, because I didn’t want to say it was a delusion, and because I believed that there was much more involved in it.

I explained to my friend that there are such things as triggers - experiences or events - which can bring back bad, painful, or traumatic memories. In his case though, the trigger of hot drinks and food, repress his memory, and therefore doesn’t flood, or cathartically release it.

However, I felt it was necessary to point out to him, that contrary to the psychotherapeutic view, that triggers are linked to bad, painful, or traumatic memory - triggers - can be completely irrational, and have no causal meaning to them. When I was very mentally unwell in 2000, before I stayed in psychiatric hospital for three weeks, I thought that there was something implanted in my computer and television, which was firing radiation at me, and destroying my brain. There is no psychotherapeutic link to this trigger for me, because I only have happy memories of watching TV, and using my computer, although it could be argued that those things had stopped me from socialising face-to-face, with other people.

The other key thing about triggers, is that although they can be irrational, and not linked to past or recent bad, painful, or traumatic events, the triggers all make sense and have meaning and explanation, when they are all linked up, and understood holistically together. This is the approach which is needed in psychotherapy, against the old simplistic, dogmatic, and inaccurate model.

My Spirituality

2009-04-14T16:20:00.001-07:00

I used to be a Buddhist, following traditional Indian Buddhism and meditation, then Nichiren Daishonin Buddhism involving chanting. I went back to searching spiritually, and have found my own spirituality, which are to a great extent the positive hearing voices. I believe in Karma up to a point, although it’s obvious to me that there is also social inequality, inequality of choices, and social injustice, which has nothing to do with past actions and lives, but are due to the economic, social, and political system.

Karma in some ways, does seem to be real, but in other ways, it doesn’t seem to apply to reality. I therefore, think that some aspects of reality are karmic, whilst others are due to other factors. I kind of believe in rebirth, but then again, I wonder why old beings, would be reborn over and over again, when it seems to me that every being born, is a completely new being. Maybe some are new, and some are old, and some are reborn in different material worlds or realities.

I am an agnostic, and do not claim to know whether there is or isn’t a God, but I sometimes pray to God, the Goddess, nature spirits, and Jesus Christ. When I was age 14, my first spirituality was witchcraft, or what is now called wicca, and in some ways I am still a witch, as I worship the spirits in nature, the universe itself, the multi-universe, and the Goddess or feminine human nature/spirit.

I like some Christianity, but I cannot accept any so-called Christianity, which supports war or state violence, terrorism, or oppression, and which is driven by the bourgeois ethic, of selfish capitalistic individualism, without some primary social loyalty or communitarianism. Christian socialism, or Christian anarchism, therefore seems more authentic or true to the principles of Christianity to me. Also, the Christian relatives in my family, knew I was being abused as a child, and yet did not speak out, and so I cannot support any Christianity which supports that kind of pacifism which allows evil.

I don’t have anything to do with any state religion, as I believe that the establishment church, are in some ways opposed to spiritual diversity, uniqueness, and truth, and are morally and ethically corrupted, by the old social and material political system.

Hearing positive voices for me, are what connects me to the divine or other worlds, and to the social world, at the same time evoking other beings in other material planes, and opening up my mind and awareness to wider social and political reality.

Hearing positive voices, is somewhat of a very complex matter, which cannot be accurately or lucidly understood, in purely simplistic terms. The positive voices, are not simply my own thoughts. They often begin as my own thoughts, but then become autonomous and independent of my consciousness and thinking. This is how my mind connects to the divine or other beings, universes, and worlds. I believe in quantum reality, and that different material worlds and universes are linked and interconnected.

Child Abuse and Protection

2009-04-14T06:56:00.000-07:00

I just listened to Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour, on the topic of child protection, and the related role and value of social workers. There was some positive points in the programme, about social workers working in or with schools, safeguarding children against abuse from a brother or sister, parenting skills for bad parents, and that experience with children for social workers was important..

My main criticism of the programme, is that is overall, it only focused on the functions of social workers, and didn’t look at their psychological attitudes, towards things like preventing or surviving child abuse. Aside from the extreme idealism, of the establishment media, the public and other mental health services, know very well that social workers are authoritarian, and have all the character traits and complexes, of the authoritarian mind-set.

What is so wrong about the entire adult education, and professional training system, is that it only looks at lay people’s psychological problems, but does not also try to analyse and understand (or even acknowledge) the psychological problems of people in authority. I’m not advocating abolishing authority, but until this changes about the system, that we openly acknowledge that the character traits and mind-sets of authoritarianism, are social and mental health problems, we will never progress as a human race, society, or world.

To give a couple of examples, of the bad attitudes of social workers towards abuse survival, when I told my social worker I was abused as a child, throughout my childhood and early teens, she accused me of lying. When I did convince her that I had been abused as a child, she said maybe the person was right to abuse me. I don’t believe that this was an individual case, but rather that these attitudes were indicative of her profession. The comedienne Jo Brand, said that she was bullied by her older brother, and that her mother, who was a social workers, let him do this.

Another criticism I had of the programme, is that by the examples it gave, it gave the impression that only men abuse children, and that all abuse is either physical or sexual. Whilst psychical abuse, often goes along with emotional and mental abuse and cruelty, as it did when I was abused as a child and teen, we need to also acknowledge that emotional and mental abuse also causes physical pain, in much the same way that mental illness does, because the mind is connected to the body. When I was repeatedly physically and emotionally abused as child, made to cry, and then made to suppress all my emotion (I was violently attacked for being happy, sad, or expressing any emotion), I had very severe pain in my eyes, head, stomach, and chest, from crying and made to repress pain and emotion.

We need to understand that some woman do abuse children, because the system gives more rights to women who abuse children, than it gives rights to abused children or abuse survivors, and this is all a consequence of women’s rights, in some ways, going too far, and becoming imbalanced in society. I have been in psychiatric hospital twice as a patient, and yet the person who abused me has never been diagnosed with a mental illness. The other thing, is that the version we have of women's rights, mostly serves middle-class women, but does not liberate working-class women from sexual slavery and being house-bound. These are social and political issues, which cannot be solved by social work alone.

The programme also didn’t say, what happens to abused children when they are removed from families. Are they put into care homes where they are further abused? Or are they fostered in places, where foster parents, don’t have to take parenting or child development classes? I spoke to a fellow psychiatric survivor recently, and she made a good point that Childline needs to be more promoted and funded by the government. The other point, is that the programme focused on children’s protection, but did not focus on children’s rights. We need to create environments or outlets, where a child can speak out if she or he is abused, and listen to children and their wishes. This means a cultural change, where we eradicate the master-slave mentality and behaviours that adults often have towards children.

My Views on the German Existentialist Philosopher Heidegger

2009-04-02T02:39:00.000-07:00

I recently listened to Hubert Dryfus' audio lectures, on Heidegger's book Being and Time. I've come to the conclusion that it is ultra-radical, extremist, bullshit though. From what I gather so far, Heidegger said there was no such thing as being, but that it is something we create, although it has no properties or entity.

He also said that feelings were not subjective, because there was no such thing as the subjective and objective, and that all feelings are just things that happen to us in the world. He said we were pre-ontological, because we had an understanding of being, but that understanding was a very practical thing, like what we do, rather than what we know. He also said that we are not being, consciousness, or entities, but simply we are what we do. Heidegger supported the Nazis in Germany, and was pro Nazi, and I can see how Heidegger’s philosophy fits in very neatly with Nazism, and with communism too.

Contrary to what Heidegger said, I think there IS such a thing as being, and that it is both pre-existent, has properties, and is an entity, although I accept that to some degree we create it, socially, or psychologically. Some of it is pre-existing, and some of it is created. That's more accurate, well-balanced, and more moderate, than what Heidegger said, which was inaccurate, illogical, and extreme. I think Heidegger's nihilism about the self, is what makes his philosophy, slot into the mass conformity of fascism and totalitarianism, and I see it as ideologically and politically created.

I'm sympathetic to Heidegger's view, that there's no such thing as the subjective and objective, because I think those things are polarised too much in politics, psychology, and philosophy, and there is much that goes beyond those concepts; and exists inbetween, but I don't believe that feelings aren't in any way subjective. I do believe that feelings can be objective, as Heidegger said though, and so I agree with him there, but it seems to me, that to say that feelings are not in any way subjective, denies experience.

Heidegger was saying that experience was objective though, and again I can agree with that up to a point. He was ahead of his time, and his philosophy is similar to mine, on that matter, in that respect. Heidegger's view that understanding is like a skill or what we do, or is something very practical, is also like his view of the self, in that it dehumanises, and omits the importance of various kinds of human relationships. I don't believe that we are what we do. That seems anti-intellectual and anti-emotional to me, and again I think it's crap.

A Personal Perspective on Marxism

2009-01-25T03:30:00.000-08:00

I have read three books on Marxism in the past, which were all very different descriptions of Marxism, including reading some of the first volume of Das Kapitol by Karl Marx. Whilst I have on separate occasions in the past, agreed with some Marxism in theory, I have not overall been convinced by Marxism politically, or in practise, nor been in agreement with its end-result, of a centralised, monopolistic, state-controlled Communist society.

The dialectic, is a process of reasoning, which involves a thesis (theory, idea, argument, or statement), anti-thesis (opposing theory/idea/argument/statement/perspective), and a synthesis or combination of the two, in order to form a new theory, perspective, or thesis. This process, was originally was one of reasoning and discussion, but Marx described it as a materialistic process, or political and human struggle, and he said that the anti-thesis, to the thesis, of state-capitalism, was the struggle of the working classes for economic gain, and that the synthesis and new thesis, was a Communist society and world. It has been said about Marx by others, that whilst he was quite good at critiquing state-capitalism, he didn't say much about what form a Communist society would take, other than in economic terms, but he was clear, that it would be a dictatorship.

The dialectic in its original form, as thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis, is very much a process of reasoning, and it is the intellectual basis, that a lot of our parliamentary, democratic politics, is based upon. I have also made some use of the dialectic, in some of my thinking and writing, because it seems to me, that it descirbes a lot of things about human nature, the mind, and society, that things can be both separate yet connected or interrelated. It does occur to me though, that a lot of parliamentary politics, are just based upon the thesis/anti-thesis model, and don't progress much to forming a synthesis or consensus, although this has changed somewhat in modern society, with the political parties being somewhat influenced by each others policies, in order to gain polarity and votes. I'll mention this aspect, and the much wider aspects of ideology in a moment, but first I want to look at the aspect of Marxism, which it is often said about it, that it rejects reason, as a means for change, in favour of some pure action.

The last point, I want to make about the dialectic, in it's original form, is that whilst it does describe a lot about human nature, the mind, and society, it is still a process of positives and negatives, whereas a thesis doesn't necessarily have to be met, or challenged, by an anti-thesis or an immediate negative, it can merely be responded to by another fresh thesis, unrelated to the original thesis. This is a more innovative and positive approach, which is not argumentative or confrontational, and which does not mean that we are dependent in any way upon a previous thesis.

Reason is very important, and it seems to me, that action without reason, is irrational and dangerous, and can only lead to chaos and dictatorship. You need reason, in order to carry things out in action, otherwise those with reason behind action, would just take over spontaneous action, no matter how good its goals or intentions. Marxists often argue that reason doesn't change anything, and that in place of it you need extremism, violence, and force, but I don't agree with that, because again it would lead to dictatorship, and what I want is a free and equal society, based upon fairness and opportunities for all.

There is of course, the question of whether opportunities for all, is just too idealistic and unworkable. For one thing, opportunities for all, is better that the concept of equal opportunities, of the eighties, as equal opportunities, was only a policy for the main, fully established minority and oppressed groups in society, such as blacks, gays, and women, but neglected other minority and oppressed groups, such as people with mental health problems, disabilities, the homeless, and the better rights, welfare, and care of children. The equal opportunities, concept and policy, of the eighties, was hypocritical, immoral, unethical, and corrupt, because it did not aim to create opportunities for everyone, but sought to target certain minorities against others, and this sometimes meant putting minorities into state power, against the same or other minorities, but without creating any corresponding equality or democracy, for those at the lower levels of the class system and society.

On the claim that opportunities for all is idealistic, it is far less idealistic than the limited policy of equal opportunities, and I think that on that particular area, New Labour got the shift of policy and context right. Of course, there will always be winners and losers in any society, but that usually happens in a stage or certain stages in people's lives, and does not have to affect, the whole of their life-opportunities and life-span. The fact that all political parties create some out-groups, and share that characteristic with fascism, means that there will always be a minority, or group at large, who lose out, but overall speaking, the reality of winners, out-groups, and losers in society, is not a natural one, but a social and economic process, and which can be to a fair extent, constructed and rectified, to create overall equalities and opportunities for all.

This brings me to the subject of class, class inequalities, and what Marx called 'class consciousness'. There is a strong valid argument in Marxism, which says that society, and/or the political system, needs to be structured or mechanised around enabling better wages, to those poorer people in society, but the concept of the working classes is a complex one, as it does not include people who are on very low-wages, or people who are unemployed or unable to work. A lot of Marxists, and so-called left-wing socialist political groups and parties, only have sympathy and empathy, with those who work, and those who have potential power. They don't seem interested in sharing power with other poor people, or empowering the poor and powerless in society. This Marxist obsession for power, seems to me to smack of fascism, rather than any kind of socialism, and is my first major objection to Marxism.

The other major disagreements I have with Marxism, despite the fact that some people say it is all sound in theory, is that it is fundamentally flawed in theory in two ways. Marx based most of his entire philosophy and political theory, upon the idea of two single individual people, or intellectual authority figures. The first was the philosopher Hegel, who said that the dialectic (thesis-antithesis/synthesis process of reasoning), was embodied in what he 'universal mind or 'spirit', and in history and the nation-state, and the second person was Feurerbach who was a materialist. Anyone who bases their entire philosophy on two single authority figures like Hegel and Feurerbach, is bound to come up with a ludicrous and monstrous overall political philosophy, that would lead to authoritarianism and dictatorship.

I fundamentally reject the concept of universal mind, or Marx's version of it as 'class consciousness', because those concepts only see, and present consciousness as collective, and do not also put importance upon individual consciousness. Collective consciousness, is important, and essential for social enlightenment and change, but only if there is some kind of dialectical process involved, in both interrelating and interconnecting it, with individual consciousness or mind, where the two things are both unified and separate, and where there is some kind of two way interaction and influence, and/or a centre area of consensus inbetween.

For me, this dialectical process, and centre area or consensus, involves to some extent, a filtering process, where both my awareness of my self, and my social awareness, interact and influence each other overall positively, and the positive hearing voices I experience are a part of that. This does not mean, that I idealise social reality, or that I am out of touch with reality. I am more than aware, of the evil, exploitation, and oppression, that exists in human nature and society, and the social, spiritual, and political processes, and mechanisms of that, as this articles explains, but I do not allow society to control or negatively influence my individual awareness, or for me to negatively influence society.

The second major theoretical objection, I have against Marxism, is that it states that only when people are enslaved in some way, can they realise that they are exploited and oppressed, and revolt and rebel against their present circumstances and situation. Marxism therefore justifies slavery, assumes that people will not want to be free and change society, without coercion, control, and abusive power over them, and to me it is just as evil as authoritarian state-capitalism.

Class consciousness is problematic, because different Marxists have very different ideas of what class consciousness actually is. Some Marxists say that class consciousness, can exist only within the broad working classes, whilst other Marxists - usually more modern ones - say that working class consciousness, is something which is to be permeated throughout the whole of society.

I do not idealise or romanticise the working classes, or any particular class, because the working classes have broadly and strongly supported fascism, such as with the popular far-right skinhead youth subculture of the eighties, and because economic gain for the employed working classes, was the same mentality of Thatcherism. There are good and bad qualities and characteristics to all classes, but there is a strong tendency for modern radical and revolutionary socialists, and right-wing democratic socialists, to betray and turn their backs against the general working class people, and that also is a form of fascism.

Last but not least, is the whole matter of political ideology, and what Marx called the 'ideological struggle'. Ideology, basically means beliefs, ideas, or principles, that create solidarity and/or political and social action. The ideological struggle of Marxism, is to enlighten working class people how the class system influences their ideas and actions, and how to organise for political and social change. The other aspect to ideological struggle though, is that it can simply mean - and is often misused as - propaganda, lies, and deliberate misleading and misinformation. This also justifies deceit and betray on a personal level, or interpersonally.

Whilst I have three major fundamental objections to Marxism, I would not reject it overall or completely, as the dialectic, of both Marx, and Hegel, are both to some extent useful and worth saving, filtering, and transforming

The Psychotic Love Affairs of Ally McBeal

2008-12-30T13:14:00.001-08:00

The central character Ally McBeal, from the American comedy series of the same name, is a pretext character, for a mostly hopeless and useless plot, that says very little about the causes of her alienation and madness, nor the causes of the madness she comes up against in society; reflected through her imaginary dialogues, where her fears, wishes, desires, and fantasies, get increasingly blurred with reality, into parody and emotional turmoil.

All this leaves us, the viewer, as a witness of a dialogue and plot, where reality and fantasy become increasingly indistinguishable and somewhat absurd, but this gives us an opportunity to have some idea of what she might be experiencing, imagining, or perceiving. We can then understand and admire her as a character, and empathize and relate to her struggles for love, and for meaningful relationships, and she’s a rebel without a pause who certainly has a place in my heart.

Some of her imaginary ridicule, of the petty-bourgeoisie and their delusional superiority, is intense, astute, very funny, and highly amusing, as it reveals both her repulsion at the society she lives within, and her tendency to day-dream about affairs that are not even started yet, or that don’t exist at all in reality.

Ally’s emotional obsessions, even get displaced and focused upon some of the other female characters, and which perhaps reveals a hidden subtext of meanings, but her mind also wanders into thoughts of sexual deviation and sexual fantasy about men, which makes her a very unique and human character for me.

What is so relevant about the character and series to me, is that it looks at the ways that the whole idea of relationships can be distorted out of all proportion, and how many people these days no longer really want to get to know other people properly, before they enter into any kind of relationship with them, even within their work and everyday environments. In this respect, Ally McBeal is a very poignant piece of social commentary on modern-day loss of love, and alienation.

In the storming, norming, and forming process of relationships, Ally gets stuck in the first stage, of storming (her mind is a mass of endless regurgitated ideas and information), and most of her relationships are over or fail miserably, because they never really get started in the first place.

She has a socially imposed image her self, and in some ways she allows others to negatively impact upon her, as her thoughts and feelings seem to operate within an interpersonal and social vacuum, without really focusing on the real social skills of open communication, shared interests, partnership and friendship.

Ally McBeal is not attractive as such, but she has great character in appearance (which I think is much more important than simplistic beauty), and what I admire about her as a character, is that she is never happy with the mediocrity, or merely content with very mundane relationships, and her sentimentalism and creativity refuses to be emotionally repressed, by the petty-bourgeoisie who misunderstand her, and who she has a very healthy mistrust of.

Ally McBeal, I love you, if no one else will.

Children and Insanity

2008-12-07T12:24:00.000-08:00

"Lost in a Roman, wilderness of pain, and all the children are insane"

Taken from the song The End, by The Doors

According to some radical psychiatric patients rights groups, like Mindfreedom, there is a huge recent increase in psychiatrists forcibly drugging children, with anti-psychotic drugs, and with amphetamine drugs like Ritalin for hyperactivity. MindFreedom, say that the reason for this, is that the psychiatrists who do this, are making huge amounts of money, out of the pharmaceutical industry. This may be the case, but it’s hard to know to what extent this is happening, and the main protest points that MindFreedom make, do not look into the whole grey areas of the nature of children, as sane or insane human beings.

One thing that needs to be realised and understood about all of this, and which is pivitol fact, is that by nature, children are more insane than adults, in a positive and a natural sense, and not including disturbing symptoms that children may experience, such as nightmares or hallucinations, as a result of being bullied by other children or abused by adults. If a child does experience these negative symptoms, then we have to investigate what is happening in their lives socially, at school and home, and do something to change any bad or harmful social influences, rather than forcibly drugging them.

Children are less inhibited than adults, their thoughts and emotions, are less socially structured or connected, and they think and act more spontaneously and imaginatively. All of this, makes them sort of insane in a way, and which proves that insanity is something somewhat natural, but which is conditioned out of as adults, in order to fit into so-called sane society. Fitting into sane society, means that we are supposed to tolerate some abuse, exploitation, and bullying, and suppress our natural and spontaneous emotions, and our freedom of thoughts and imagination.

The point here, is that some insanity is a natural and good thing, in children and adults, and the psychiatric drugging of it, is due to a misunderstanding of children, and to some extent a very cynical and misanthropic view of human beings. This needs to change, along with accepting the unique culture and values that diagnosed and non-diagnosed mad people have, and which is important that those values remain both separate, and yet part of the similar altruistic values of society.

Madness Ethics and Morality

2008-11-17T03:35:00.000-08:00

Throughout history, and to some extent in modern times, so-called madness has been seen by others as moral weakness, failing, or depravity. Whilst there is, or can be, an immoral or violent aspect to madness, the vast majority of diagnosed or non-diagnosed mad people, are not immoral, unethical, or violent. What is also true, is that madness can be something which has its own morality and ethics, and which is separate from the morality and ethics of so-called sane society, but is potentially valid, as part of a moral and ethical consensus within, or as part of society.

Diagnosed and non-diagnosed mad people, often disagree or act against the immorality and violence of so-called sane society, or of the so-called sane world, which is seen by us, as justifying the worst aspects of capitalism or communism, exploitation, bullying, racism and other such isms, imperialism, and war. This difference of approach or opinion, of mad people, gets labelled as deviation or non-conformism, by so-called sane society, in order to discredit it and us, as something which is completely opposed, to the culture, values, and society of a region, country, or world.

Sometimes mad people rebel and act, against the false or hypocritical morality of society in bad ways, but overall, sane society violates and goes against our morality and ethics, by inflicting terrorism, violence or the threat of violence, and coercion upon us, whilst mad morality and ethics, are all for the good of ourselves, society, and the world at large. The bad ways that mad people rebel and act, against the true or false morality of sane society and the world, cannot be understood adequately or completely, without also understanding the ways that sane society, violates and goes against our separate but interrelated morality, values, and ethics.

It's not necessarily a matter of competition or comparison, but I personally believe that the morality, values, and ethics of mad people, are overall better than the morality, values, and ethics of sane society or people, who try to force their values upon us and destroy our own. This is what I call mental health imperialism.

However, where a lot of diagnosed, and non-diagnosed mad people, do fail morally and ethically, is in the whole area of disclosing, understanding, and sharing knowledge and information, about the causes of mental health problems. This is because the psychiatric and mental health system - falsely claiming that they are very much part of sane values and society - encourages people with mental health problems, to be very selfish and private about the causes of madness - sometimes with the threat of invading our privacy, terrorising us, and taking away our rights as citizens, if we want and choose to disclose, understand, and share this knowledge and information. This is the point or place where the morality, values, and ethics, of the psychiatric service user, and psychiatric survivor model and approach, meet and connect to the values of sane society, in the form of altruistic values.

What is very much needed and required by sane society and the sane world, is to liberate, protect, nurture, and develop the unique and separate morality, values, and ethics of madness, to discourage violations of the genuine and valid values on both sides, and to form a conscious consensus of where all our values meet, conjoin, and coexist together.

An Analysis of Developmental Theories of Mental Health Problems in Society

2008-11-16T14:27:00.001-08:00

A while ago, I had a very brief conversation, with a person called Peter, who came round my friend Luke's flat with another friend. We got on to the subject of mental health, and I expressed my view to him, that I didn't believe that people with mental health problems, were biologically or genetically inferior, but that it was possible that we were in some ways genetically unique, and genetically superior in some ways, compared to so-called sane people, because we can have higher creative abilities, and higher senses of experience, observation, and awareness.

He thought that what I said was interesting, and he sort of agreed with me, but he said that he believed that all mental health problems were developmental problems. I couldn't really agree with his rather simple and extreme statement, as I realised that there are all different kinds of meanings, and terms, surrounding the phrase "developmental problems", but he was not in the mood to discuss such complexities, and he replied to me that he was "just thick".

I've done some recent research, into modern psychological developmental theory, and unlike the old deterministic developmental theory, that sees us as conditioned by our social environment and surroundings, and seeks to change society, the emphasis now is on total freewill, saying that individuals create their own environments. This is the neo-liberal agenda, but it is obvious, that children and poor people, do not primarily choose their home or social environments, and that there is still a need to change society to benefit people, rather than the other way round.

My other criticism of developmental theory, is that society often has a problem with people who are very highly developed intellectually, emotionally, or politically, and who don't fit into the general mediocrity of culture and society. Some things about human beings, should not be developed out of us, such as some goodness arising from some innocence, whist other things are naturally and socially developed, too far for society to accept or understand.

There is also the very important matter, of how far society or services are developed. Society, and health and mental health services, also need to be developed to a high degree or good quality level, for people or persons to benefit from an overall and widespread developmental approach. Then there is the matter, of whether development is self-development, or development by others. For children, some development by others is necessary, but for adults self-development is far more ethical and important, individually or collectively, whilst wider social integration and support are important too. I believe in a developmental approach, which does not individualise people too much, but takes account of individual rights and freedom, but also offers the choice of working together and co-operative environments.

Developmental approaches should not also just focus around work, or physical or academic labour, as the mind also needs casual time to relax and develop, within the creative process, and what is needed are a choice of different activities, in order to develop satisfactory social skills and creative imagination. One danger of developmental psychology, is that it can appeal to very radical or political extremists, because it seems ideologically cool or sound, when in reality, they know absolutely nothing about it, in terms of past and present theory or application.

Developmental psychology, tends not to take into account spiritual or mental development, as like psychiatry, it tends to be very physical, biological, and materialistic. The progress of the mind is not purely linear, but it progresses and learns through some ebbs and flows, regressions and progressions, towards some sort of progressive outcome. There can be no rigid planning for the development of people or persons, in terms of an ultimate end product, as it has to be realised that time moves in both directions, backwards and forwards at the same time, towards some achievements and goals.

We need to realise that developmental theory and practise is very valid, if it doesn't treat people as cogs in a machine, but as democratic participants, who can affect, influence, and have a say, on how society operates, influences, and functions, instead of saying that society just belongs to one class or elite group. Society belongs to all of us, and we all have a right to have a say, and an influence on how it works and operates. A developmental approach which does not take this into account, is totalitarian, and which is why totalitarian societies put a lot of emphasis on developmental approaches, to formulate a very compliant character, that will accept propaganda and indoctrination.

Hearing Voices, Morality, and Multiple Personalities

2008-11-09T05:27:00.001-08:00

A friend recently asked me whether I cared about what people thought about me. I replied, that I care in absolutely no way whatsoever, because my morality and ethics, have to come from me, and me alone, and can't be imposed upon me by corrupt people in power and authority. I do however, care about what my voices say about me, because they are reflections and transformations, of my social experiences of others, and as such are, sublimated moral and ethical influences. Without this barrier or filter though, I would simply be conforming socially to the values of the people in authority and the public, and both of which leave a lot to be desired.

This friend also asked me if I ever felt self-conscious, with all the surveillance equipment around in society and in public places. I replied, that I don't feel self-conscious, because in some ways I have become immune or desensitised to it, but I do project my consciousness or mind outward into the universe, and have it back looking at me, but it is me looking at me, and not God or others looking at me. The projected mind or self is also experienced as subjective, whilst my mind which remains intact is perceived objectively, but that there is also a dialectical synthesis, and new thesis, between the subjective projected mind or self, and the enclosed mind and self, and which is what I would call the divine, and the opening where the creative wisdom, flows and floods inside me.

I very occasionally, get strong feelings that some alien or divine energy has entered into my body and mind, and is viewing the world and others from out of my eyes, although this does not mitigate my sense of self, being, or consciousness. I even sometimes see this being take flashlight photos of the world through my eyes. I also sometimes hear very tinny radio-type transmission voices, asking me what it all means, and I sometimes get a similar voice, noise, or sound, coming from inside my head, and coming out of my ears or ear, which says all will be revealed to us, meaning that I will reveal things to them. These are not, and are nothing like any other hearing voices experiences I have ever had, and they are something completely different.

I am not religious, but I can't rule out the fact that I may be revealing knowledge about human beings to some divine or extraterrestrial being or beings. They cannot read my thoughts, and can only hear me when I engage in conversation with my female voices. Since I have befriended a lovely woman called Maria, my female voices have become less frequent, but I still talk with them, and still need them.

I have sometimes wondered if I am multiple personality, because I appear to have four basic personalities. One is a very common, coarse, working-class person, the other is an upper-class person, like an Oscar Wildean aristocrat, and the third one is like a redneck or very rustic character. I also sometimes think that I am a woman, of very good values and great respectability. These different personalities I have, change according to the company I keep, but they remain stable, melted, and unified, when there is communication and interaction between then, achieving some harmony, yet they must still remain as separate entities.

I understand a lot of this in a way, because I have to lower my personality intellectually, in order to fit into society and engage with the public. I also talk to a lot of redneck Americans on Internet chat, and some very nice respectable ladies. All of these people have an influence over my personality structure. The upper class character is something I have picked up from my dad and his partner, and from my friend Luke. I regard myself as upper-class, even though I am in reality just a peasant.

Madness and Innocence

2008-11-09T05:23:00.000-08:00

There is a common held belief, amongst some of the public and psychiatrists, that diagnosed-mad people are in some ways more child-like and innocent than other people. In my experience of other diagnosed-mad people, I think there is some truth in this, whilst at the same time I realise that it can also be a part of infantilisation (treating adults as children) in order to take away our freedoms, rights, and responsibility as adults. Some innocence is very important though, and I reject the religious concept of original sin. We all have a parent-child-adult within us, and it's important to retain and nurture the child inside us, whilst being wise and knowledgeable as parents or adults.

I recently had an email conversation, with a nice Russian woman, who was a kindergarten teacher. She said that she went to the cinema, watched a fairy story with the children, and communicated and interacted with them. She said that children speak the truth in a way, and say some very intelligent things, and I added that they can be very intuitive, and sense pain or sadness in another child or adult, much more than an adult can in a way. In a way, children have a higher form of consciousness than adults do, although their logical faculties aren't fully developed

I agreed with her point, about installing good principles in children at an early age, and to give them some good analogies and examples of good, love, and kindness triumphing over evil. As long as the child, is also allowed to develop his or her own individual and social values as they get older, and are not having very specific dogmatic values, like political propaganda, imposed upon them in an authoritarian way, then this is fine and all good. The whole matter of morality/principles/ethics and preserved innocence, is a very important point she made, and one that very much interests me.

The big problem we had under the Conservative regime in this country, and which I very much opposed as a Labour party voter, is that children were taught to have respect for very authoritarian teachers at school, who used and misused the cane (corporal punishment). The children were encouraged to be very competitive against each other, at the expense of co-operation and some mutual learning, and which encouraged and created some aggression, and bullying, in the children towards each other. The children were only taught to respect adult authority figures, but were not also encouraged to have respect for each other. The old very bad culture of learning and schooling has somewhat changed under the Labour government for the better, and they will continue to get my vote.

I was abused throughout my childhood and early teens, and had most of my innocence beaten or tormented out of me, and so I had to re-capture and re-create it in a way as an adult. My older brother, was encouraged to often be evil towards me as a child, but he also had to do this in order to survive and escape from the abuse himself, although he was still abused at times. I do very much agree with the Russian woman, that innocence and morality/principles/ethics, can co-exist together, and that the preservation of innocence, is a very good and a healthy thing in children. I would even go so far as to say, that the preservation of innocence, is a good thing in adults too, as it is a part of their intense and sensitive imagination and creativity, their compassion, and again a part of their morality/principles/ethics.

This is why I am very fond of some developmental practice, and theory, in mental health and society, but I think that it is wrong and counter-productive to crush and destroy, all aspects of an adult person's innocence, to make them more realistic, or to wise them up about the world, but this is what some people in authority in social work, society, and mental health, try to do to us. We can be more than wise about other people and the world, without having our innocence beaten, oppressed, terrorised, or crushed out of us. Preserving ones innocence and the child aspect of ones personality as an adult, does not make a person less of an adult or parent, it just makes the adult aspect more holistically integrated, and also able to relate to children more easily, imaginatively, creatively, compassionately, and effectively.

Because my brother encouraged my mother to abuse me, and because I was bullied at secondary school for two years by other children, I developed a fear of children as an adult, and found it very hard to relate and interact with them. I now have a four year old niece though, my older brother's daughter, Jasmine. She is a very good natured child, and I have learnt how to relate to her, both as a child myself, and as an adult. My dad is a full grown man, who is usually a very serious person, but he is a bit silly, and like a little boy when he plays with Jasmine. I could say that he's making a fool out of himself, but I also realise that he has a gift in a way. My mum is very good with Jasmine too, is very kind towards her, and knows how to play with her and entertain her.

I agreed with the Russian woman that children should not see or watch violence on TV. On the other hand, adults should watch violent films, if they are social realism, because it's about awareness and changing society for the better. Otherwise we would all live in a dream world, full of roses and flowers. I tend to dislike gratuitous or unnecessary violence on TV though, although that's a tricky one, because many people argue that it's also therapeutic and cathartic for some adult people, and about freedom of expression, and artistic freedom.

Hearing Voices and so-called Delusions of Telepathy in Others

2008-11-09T05:21:00.000-08:00

Many voice hearers, have experiences or perceptions of telepathy, that they can hear other people's thoughts criticising them, or more commonly, that others can hear what they are thinking. A friend of mine, said that it was like when he was a child, and taught that everything he thought was naughty and bad, but he couldn't stop his thoughts from appearing.

He said that he will often think something, that he would not normally say, such as a very irreverent or rude comment, and then get scolded or threatened for it by the voice, and that this is what makes his telepathy voice hearing experience so unpleasant. He added, that it was like being on msn messenger, but you can't control what you type, and you are typing silly or rude things, that you don't really want to say, and you can't close the program, so that the conversation is forced upon you. You get forced into a conversation that you can't get out of. He said that these voices are always people that he knows, and that they can hear his thoughts, but he can't hear their voices, but he experiences them in his mind.

I recently spoke to a voice hearer, who said that other people - some he knows and some he doesn't know- can read or hear his thoughts, but that he can only barely hear their thoughts, as if they are being filtered, but certain voices come through and tell him that he has cancer. This to me represents the predominant view in our culture that mental health problems are diseases, when they are not diseases, but they can sometimes be understood or experienced as such, by the voice hearer.

I then asked him if he'd ever been abused or bullied, to which he replied that he has been bullied as a teenager in college for about two years, but that it triggers the voices if he talks about it, and he doesn't like to talk about it. I assured him that this was fine, if he didn't want to talk about it, but I told him that sooner or later, he might have to deal with that issue with his young psychotherapist, who had just come out of college, and never heard voices.

When voice hearers have so-called delusions of telepathy in others, the voice hearer usually has either been abused or bullied, and has their privacy invaded, and their personal boundaries violated, and which is why they experience telepathy in others. It can also stem from people imposing ideas about us that are not true, and making stereotypical opinions and prejudiced judgements about us.

From my own experience with hearing voices, I also sometimes experience the voices reading my thoughts, and so I try to talk nonsense, or think irrationally, and which sometimes works.. It's very hard to stop the thoughts or stop the voices from hearing the thoughts, because when the voices hear the thoughts, is it is immediate, and there is no time to block, distract, or interrupt the process.. There are some coping strategies though. I've thought and had voices singing silly songs before, and in that way prevented them from attacking me for my thoughts. I've also read their minds, showing that I have as much magical ability, social predictability, and power as them.

A Critique and Appraisal of R. D. Laing's Theory of Schizophrenia and Madness

2008-11-08T12:53:00.001-08:00

Some years ago, I gave up reading as an interest and hobby, because I wanted to focus more on my own experiences, findings, thoughts, and observations, and concentrate on my own writing, and which is as good as, or even in some ways far better, than most written material on mental health today, by big authors and academics.

Just before I gave up reading entirely as a hobby and interest, I read four of R. D Laing's books, first starting with The Divided Self, which my aunt gave me an old copy of when I was 15, although I didn't read it until five years later, because at the age of 15, I couldn't relate to it.

R. D. Laing was a sort of radical psychiatrist in the late 1950s, 60s, and 70s, who basically said that madness was caused by what he called dysfunctional - meaning chaotic, disorderly, or disturbed - communication in the family, by parents towards children. At first I was taken in by his findings and theories, and accepted most of what he said, but now I have my own experiences, findings, observations, knowledge, and hindsight, and I now find myself rejecting most of Laing's basic theories on so-called Schizophrenia and madness.

Whilst I do accept that behaviours in familles can cause madness, this happens when there is just plain child abuse, involving violence and the threat of violence, dysfunctional or not in communication. Also, I see madness being created if there is verbal, mental, and emotional suppression, but I don't see dysfunctional communication in general as causing madness. Indeed, some dysfunctional communication keeps many couples or friends together, and is part of wit, creativity, and play, whilst it's also very important to have very clear and attentive communication.
But this is one problem I have with Laing's views on this point, because dysfunctional conversation does not cause madness, it is indeed a solution for a form of so-called madness, such as when people think or speak incoherently, to blot out the rational control of hearing negative and intrusive voices, or when they respond to the some of the illogical everyday conversations around them. Dysfunction communication by itself, can and does sometimes create mental health problems, or annoyance and stress, especially if there is also some social control or repression,. but these are minor mental health problems, which most people have in some way, and not anything to do with madness as such at all.

There's no doubt that Laing was a very good writer, who wrote somewhat creatively, and who was somewhat radical and innovative, and related very well and creativity towards psychiatric diagnosed-people, but I have some fundamental disagreements with his findings and theories, on so-called Schizophrenia and madness. I have also since reading Laing, come up with my own findings, on things like seeming incoherent speech, and psychotic breakdown, preferring to look rather at a wider context and perspective, finer details, and looking at how the details relate to the whole, of many different contexts, and focusing more on the here and now.
That is not to say, that I don't believe that mental health problems, can be caused by bad family upbringing from the past, because I believe that they can if children or adults are abused, and that post traumatic stress can be created by that, but I wanted to move on from Laing's theories and findings, think for myself, and write about my own findings, experiences, and observations.

One thing I would like to comment on, is that during the early 1990s, it was very common and popular amongst medical doctors, and those of a conservative political persuasion, to believe that divorced parents, were a cause of Schizophrenia in their child or children. This was a socially dogmatic view on the Right-wing of politics, when usually social dogmas with falsity, untruths, and half-truths, usually come from the Left of politics. At the time, I very much disagreed with this theory of divorce causing Schizophrenia, because I thought that it was based upon a very outdated and idealistic view of the family, which refused to move on and embrace the extended family, and because it saw the individual as bonded to his family in identity, and not having or creating his own social and personal identity. In my own case, my mum and dad had to separate and divorce, because they were just not suited to be with each other in many ways, and there was a very bad, and in some ways, dangerous and threatening behaviours involved from my mum towards my dad, and the abuse that I suffered as a consequence of all of this, was intolerable, and very detrimental to my physical safety and mental health.

I'm not saying that the separation of divorce doesn't cause any mental health problems, because I also believe that it can, but living in a situation of conflict, violence, and abuse, would have been much worse, and having step-parents can be just as therapeutic, loving, and supportive, but the Right wing have or had a very blinkered and narrow-minded view about this. Having step-parents, as well as parents, can be much better, and have many different advantages.

The other thing I would say about Laing's findings, is that they can be hegemonised, absorbed, and used by mental health professionals, with coercion and state power, but this is a total perversion of Laing's spirit, and his message of equality, freedom, and choice. Laing's findings and theories on the family and madness, are now sometimes used by some mental health professionals, to impose family therapy upon individuals, where individuals are coerced or forced to interact with their families, who are often abusing or mistreating them in some way.

The individual is then sometimes objectified and observed, by social workers and other mental health professionals, watching and pontificating about them behind a one-way screen. Such so-called family therapy, when social workers were terrorising me with the Police, was tried to be forced upon me, but I refused to co-operate with such oppression, to the point where I had to hit my dad because he was hounding me to participate in it. I regret to this day that I hit him, and I screamed at him "I am not a family, I am an individual!".

There is a view that some radical feminists have about Laing, that he had a problem with his mother, because she was cold and cruel to him as a child, and so therefore he blamed all mothers for madness and was a misogynist. Such views about Laing, are based upon ideological ignorance, jealousy, misandry (hatred of men), and a basic misunderstanding of Laing's work and the facts. Laing actually supported and defended many of his female patients, who were victims of abusive fathers, and in his case studies of madness and the family, he is not in any way biased against mothers. On the contrary, in one part, in one of his books, he actually endorses women oppressing men, if they have been oppressed by other men, and it is here on the gender issue that I think Laing lacked morality and ethics.

Laing very much defended women who were abused as children or adults, and in his case studies of families causing madness, did not one-sidedly blame mothers. He did speak out against his own mother's abuse towards him as a child, and I think that he was right to do that. I have done this about my own mother, but I have also understood what influenced and motivated her to abuse me, and forgiven her, not least because she has changed and loves me immensely, and I love her immensely too.

Another major criticism about Laing, is that the way Laing is used by mental health services is anti-family, and that this is extreme and a great shame, because I don't believe that Laing himself was anti-family. To some extent, this attitude of the mental health/social workers and professionals, is due to the fact that they see psychiatric-diagnosed people as children, in order to take away our rights as adults, and they also see their role as our parents and even our bosses. The fact is, they do use Laing to prise people away from their families, but then they terrorise and totally neglect psychiatric-diagnosed people without any support, and give us the ultimatum and double-bind (no-win situation) of choosing between two sets of parental abusers - the mental health/social workers and professionals on the one hand - and the actual and real families on the other. This is because the mental health workers and professionals, don't really want to be our carers or parents, and they have very little nurturing skills towards psychiatric-diagnosed people, but instead they want to be controllers and authoritarian figures in a Police state. In a way, they see us as their slaves and property, and think that it's their job to abuse us, but that it's wrong for our real parents to do so.

Such a double-bind (no-win situation) in the identity and mind, with being trapped between these conflicting pressures, of abusive powers of the social, psychiatric, and mental health authorities on the one hand, and abusive parents on the other, can in itself create a split in the identity and mind of the psychiatric-diagnosed person, but there is absolutely no recognition, realisation, or responsibility of the reality of this, by the social workers, psychiatrists, and mental health professionals. . .

It is the forcing of people from their families which is the bad thing. If a person wants to be somewhat autonomous from their family by choice, if they are being abused or mistreated by their families, or if they want to create and raise a family of their own, or find their independence and new role in society, then that is in a way fine, but forcing them away from the family, and in a situation where they have no more connection or relationship to it, and no other support, is a very bad and detrimental thing, for all the reasons I have given.

The main objection I have to one of Laing's main theories on so-called Schizophrenia, is the view he had that Schizophrenics hold back and isolate themselves from others. This is simply not true, except in cases where individuals are marginalised or terrorised, or can't fit into very conservative environments. In a way, saying that we hold back from others, is another way of saying that we are selfish, and yet psychiatrists and social workers are the real parasites, who earn lots of money from poor and vulnerable people's problems in daily living. They don't want us to be altruistic, they want hierarchies of carers, and patients who are treated as if we have no valid or human thoughts and feelings.

The other thing Laing draws reference to, is that supposedly a split occurs in the Schizophrenic's identity and mind, and a false self is created which takes over or becomes autonomous. Such Cartesian Dualism ii completely oversimplified when understanding human beings. Firstly, psychiatric diagnosed people, have more elasticity and flexibility to be different selves than other people, who are more intact, rigid, and less adaptable. Secondly, a false self, may just be a feminine side to a man, or a masculine side to a woman, which the person might be trying to separate, form a relationship or love with in some way, and then integrate the two, in order to create a much more balanced or holistic human being. All of this is beyond the training and understanding of psychiatrists and social workers though, who like robots, only believe what is written in their text books.

Then there is the whole matter of which Laing called 'ontological insecurity', where a person is supposedly alienated from their bodies, other people, and the world, and feels naturally at unease and in despair in the world. Ontological insecurity is actually what most people experience. It's only those people who try to break out of that, who get labelled as ontologically insecure and insane. . .

To end on a positive note about Laing, from reading Laing's books, I learnt from him that there are three basic levels to communication and relatedness. The first one, is understanding and finding common ground, or what most people call a consensus. The second level, is agreeing to differ. The third level, when the other two things can't be achieved, are parting ways.

Extremists don't follow this formula though, as they practise something Laing called mergence when they form a group or collective, which suppresses their differences and individual identity and freedom. From seeing some liberal counsellors, I also learnt that people can attack or criticise something in others, part of which they are denying in themselves. This doesn't hold for social and material conditions though, but is a good thing to be reminded of. These counsellors also pointed out about people who protest too much, that in fact they are projecting their own characteristics and attributes onto others.

Candour, Duplicity, Betrayal, and Authenticity

2008-11-04T08:26:00.001-08:00

There's a view that some radical people and others have, that candour, or being very honest and open in communication, involves aggression, suppressing the other persons opinions, free thoughts and actions, and betrayal. This is sometimes the view of radical people on the liberal or left of politics, but also the view of some of the conservatives, as exploitative power and betrayal were actually openly endorsed by Margaret Thatcher in her "Lion's strength" speech.

No one is as pure as the snow, and in some ways, as Orwell said in his novel 1984, we all betray each other. What is important, is that we don't betray ourselves, meaning our conscience. The only time I will betray anyone, is if there is a very good ethical or moral reason to, and then I will avoid naming the person.

I was recently told by a family member, that another family member, had phoned his four year daughter and pretended not to be her dad. I was told, that his daughter supposedly got the sick joke, and responded by saying that she was someone else as well. I was concerned by this, that such a "joke" to play on a four year old, is inappropriate, because it is teaching the child that betrayal and deceit are something humorous, when we should be teaching children values like loyalty and love, and not imposing our screwed-up ways of relating, from when we were children towards other children, and by our parents or parent towards us.

Betrayal, is also sometimes seen by people as being authentic, or showing their true selves, whilst it is in fact showing a false or evil self. There are many ways that a person can be aware of the false or evil side of themselves, by introspecting, and without imposing it upon others.

I have consistently spoken out against authoritarianism and abuse, but some social workers have terrorised me with some of the Police, which they continue to do to poor and powerless people in Thanet, and I get nothing but ill-will from Thanet people, when all I want is a better society and what is good for everyone. This is obviously an evil town, where corrupt and oppressive people are rewarded, and where any kind of uniqueness and goodness is suppressed, distorted, or destroyed.

When some of the Police terrorised me with others, with choc-a-block traffic, threatening to run me over if I tried to cross the road, and shouting hatred and insults at me, like hate-week from Orwell's novel 1984, my family and what I thought were my friends at the time, joined in with those Police against me. Despite their cowardice, I have continued to love and support my family, as they have been good to me since, and I understand their backgrounds as to why they behaved towards me as such. I now have much better friends too.

If a person has mental health problems in Thanet, and which are mostly just problems with living, then their lives are made deliberately harder by others, because people just want to use themselves against others, and push others to extremes, where they have to go into psychiatric hospital, because the oppressive people want to perpetuate the very hierarchical class system that operates here.

Also, the kind of solidarity that operates here in Thanet, is very sectarian, and excludes people with less money and power. The far-left also treat others as inferior in this way, and they have the same out-dated oppressive and distorted psychiatric opinions about people with mental health problems, and which is why I will never trust or support them.

It's also a fact, that any kind of libertarian and new social findings about mental health, tend to get distorted and misused by the state, when state power is not the issue, the issues are democracy, solidarity, freedom of association, and individual freedom. The label of psychotic and deluded, is sometimes misused to terrorise and torture people with mental health problems, and to abuse us, and for others and society get away with doing this. People with mental health problems must organise in some way, and fight against this abuse, and defend and protect those who are subjected to this harm and injustice.

I will never fully recover, from the abuse I have suffered as a child and adult, and I cannot go on silently without speaking out about what is till happening to others. Some of the abuse I suffered as a child, has happened to me in some ways as an adult: the threat of violence, confinement, verbal abuse, and threat of abduction. This makes me wonder if my abuser when I was a child, was subjected to this by some of the Police in some ways too, and was projecting that onto me. Child abuse, and abuse by Police state power, are two separate things, but I wonder if the two things are in some ways connected. Intelligent common sense tell me that in some ways they are.

Analysis of Demon song in Context to Hearing Voices

2008-10-16T04:02:00.000-07:00

Don´t break the Circle

Don´t break the circle
Don´t break the circle
Concentrate!
I´m your contact link across the great divide
Many voices in my ear
Hold on I think there´s something coming through
From the other side.
It´s for all those who believe
The chain is stronger if the lifeline is unbroken
So beware the presence of The Unexpected Guest
Don´t break the circle
Don´t break the circle
Unexplained
Many things we thought were lost may come to light
On a higher plain in the spirit world
Where only a few of us possess the second sight
Now the messenger awaits
The chain is stronger if the lifeline is unbroken
So beware the presence of The Unexpected Guest
Don´t break the circle
Don´t break the circle.
The circle must keep going on and on
But wait
Is there one amongst us here who believes?
A stranger to the sign
Take care, for all the things you fear
May be revealed
Within the forces of the night
The chain is stronger if the lifeline is unbroken
So beware the presence of The Unexpected Guest
Don´t break the circle
Don´t break the circle
Don´t break the circle
Don´t break the circle
The circle must keep going on and on
The circle must keep going on and on

By Demon, from the album The Unexpected Guest

In the early 80’s in the UK, there was a creation of a certain type of heavy metal - influenced by punk, with much faster and heavier sounds than previous heavy metal bands - called NWOBHM (New Wave Of British Heavy Metal). The 80’s were a time of social division, conflict, and inner and outer struggles, with good becoming evil, and evil becoming, or being seen as good, and some of the songs of this musical genre reflect this. Some of these NWOBHM bands, like Demon, and Samson, were very unique and ahead of their time, as they paved the way for the more experimental, and hard-core metal bands, of the 90’s and the present time.

The Unexpected Guest, by Demon, is in my opinion one of the greatest rock albums for its time, and in some ways very unique. This song, Don’t break the Circle, in particular, is a very good simple analogy for hearing voices, as it draws upon a spiritualist perspective and understanding, but which can be decoded as to its social, material, and human meanings.

First of all the song says concentrate. I very much have to concentrate to hear my voices, and which is like tuning in to a radio station, and a focusing out and in. I am your contact link across the great divide, for me means a spiritual, another material world, or place, but it also means things like class and gender divisions in society. The line the unexpected guest, for me refers to intrusive voices, and which can be both positive or negative, although for me they are overall very positive. The voices themselves are the messenger.

A stranger to the sign, means those in society incapable of a much higher semiotic awareness and understanding socially and politically. The circle itself is our social connections with each other creatively, emotionally, intellectually, and in terms of the creative imagination. The circle must keep going on and on, means that we must continue, our social connections and interactions with one another.

As music speaks louder than words, I urge you all to buy or download this album, and which is in some ways a musical masterpiece.

The Latest Series of Events

2008-08-23T05:03:00.000-07:00

The latest thing I find out, about the robots, who work for the mental health and social work system here, is that they think I live in a fantasy world, because I choose to believe in the positive voices, in order to learn from them, and they still believe the simple-minded dogma, that if I had better friendships and relationships, then I wouldn’t need the positive voices. Whilst some psychiatrists and mental health workers, have a somewhat social approach, they are incapable of realising and understanding complex psychological and sociological matters.

I have always had the positive voices, and will always need them. It’s just a sick joke to say that I am out of touch with reality, because I speak out against Police state terrorism and abuse. Regarding the positive voices, the robots I refer to in this area, have no conception of the colossal meanings, and multi-contextual synchronicities that I am involved in, both on a very mundane and a higher level.

People here are cold, ignorant, aggressive, and they don’t interact, speak out, or reach out to others with courage and compassion. I don’t think that everyone here is like that though, as I have met some very nice, warm, and socially and politically progressive people here, and I have a loyalty to my hometown, to the poor and oppressed people here, and to the public.

Neither do I hate all of the Police here. Some Police in the past, have abused and terrorised me, but others have saved my life, when this area has driven me to near suicide. I was recently accused of trying to bugger a friend, who had mental health problems, just because I hugged him, and during the investigation, the Police detective was fair, mutually respectful, and a mutual gentleman towards me.

The DNA results on the friend’s trousers, came back as negative, and all the charges have been dropped. I do still believe, that in a lot of ways this area is a Police state though, and I have much evidence to back this up. This area is also a thriving ground for political extremism. The conservatives here, along with others, destroy any kind of uniqueness and individuality, and their version of conservatism is very close to communism and fascism, in that it levels everyone down, and puts inferior people in charge, over highly intelligent and creative poor people.

Latest Update on my Most Recent Email Exchange with a Dominatrix

2008-08-22T04:51:00.001-07:00

As for it being silly me analysing you, as I haven't seen your body language or facial expressions, I didn't set out to analyse you, as it was only after you posted our email exchanges over the net, without my permission and consent, that I then decided to do this. Also, I have seen your facial expressions over the net, on your website, and they were very submissive poses.

As I said, I am a diagnosed borderline genius, and I have done tons of research over the net for my article, and could write ten articles about you from our email exchanges, but I don't want to focus on you personally, but create an overview, and a much deeper and wider perspective on the matter.

You have a Dom as a partner (although you didn't tell me whether this was male or female, but I suspect he is male, because this is very common amongst dominatrixes), and you are also into sexually dominating, and being sexually dominated by other women. You're not a true dominatrix or a fully-fledged sexually dominant woman, you are a switch, and in some ways even a female masochist towards men and other women.

I know a lot about these things, as I have studied psychology, sociology, and BDSM matters for years, with great details, and with deep, colossal experiences, awareness, and observations.

I suggest you reply to this email, so the public, and the thousand of readers who read my articles, can hear your side of things, and so we can stay communicating with each other, because despite the fact that you don't like what I say, because it is too real and true for you, you have a lot to learn from me, and which is what you said on your website, that you are also willing to learn from your clients and others.

Again, I apologise if I made you feel very upset. This is not something I like to do, but maybe you are over sensitive, and like a spoilt and spiteful little girl, always want to get your own way. Let's be grown up about it, agree to differ, and find some common ground and consensus, because I am a person, as a masochist and a centre-left libertarian, who works and operates very much from some kind of authentic, or wider consensus.

I'm still very pleased and proud, of the fact that you are our first dominatrix, with her own website in this local area, but as you can see, I have my own criticisms of dominatrixing in general too, and I believe in BDSM opportunities for everyone in society, if they are that way inclined.

Peter

Most Recent Email Exchange with a Dominatrix

2008-08-21T17:42:00.000-07:00

I sent a dominatrix my new article called Dominatrixes in the Modern Age.

The dominatrix said:

Peter,

Your "article" as intelligent as it sounds, is crap.... You have never MET a pro-dominatrix, so you actually have no idea what we are like!!!You were analyzing me.... Which is silly when you can't see my body language or facial reactions!

I think you need help. Intentionally winding people up so you can create the perfect BIAS (because that is what your report is!)Is very a very low thing to do indeed.. I just thought you were an eccentric, you are ridiculous.. Nothing but a journalist.

I am very disappointed, and I can't believe how much time I have wasted on you Peter.

And I wish we never spoke now. I really mean that from my heart. :-(

Someone that Cheats another Person into believing he is something else is very low.

Bye Peter.

Publish This if you like... I'm Really very upset

***

I replied:

You know very well, that my intention was not to analyse you, or to deceive you as to what I really am. I told you the truth about my sexuality, and that I was a musician and a writer, and I came up with a very clever scheme to make you a lot of money, but you got paranoid about it, closed your mind off, and thought I was taking the piss out of you. I can very much assure you that I wasn't, but that you very much took me the wrong way. I can see and understand why though, because of other things in your life socially and so on.

As to the worth and value of my new article, it will be read by thousands of people, including the British public, and they will decide whether it is a very good article or not. I personally think it is a great article, and you should seriously think about a lot of what I say in it, because I am wising you up to a lot of realities about things, which affect and influence you.

I don't want to see you get exploited by intellectuals or by men, and I very much support your aspirations, freedom, and happiness. And before you get all hoity-toity about my new article, and on your high moral horse about it, just remember that you posted my email conversations with you over the net, without my permission or consent, whereas my article is not personal, and doesn't mention you or any other person by name.

I'm very sorry you are upset, but it's all for your own good.

Peter

Dominatrixes in the Modern Age

2008-08-21T15:51:00.001-07:00

I have never seen a dominatrix for a session, partly because there has never been one in my local area, that I know of. I have however, had many conversations with many dominatrixes, over the Internet, via email correspondence, and analysed the contents of our conversations, and the contents and photos on their websites.

I have some mixed feelings about dominatrixes, whilst my main criticism, is that I resent and can't afford to pay a lot of money, for what is after all my natural sexuality, as a heterosexual masochist, and because I believe in free and consensual BDSM activities, within society in general for people, if people are in any way that way inclined. Most dominatrixes are for rich or very well-off people, as they charge a minimum of £100 an hour, for one session, and this is another example of the working and middle classes, serving the upper classes in society.

On the one hand, I have some surface respect for dominatrixes, in that at they work within consensual transactions, and do not seek work in positions of power and authority, where they could impose repressed sexually dominant or sadistic urges, upon very poor or powerless people in society. As far as I know, dominatrixes don't do that, but I think that some of them, are under very naive and false illusions, that they are dominant or autonomous women, free from male dominance, authority, and power, because they are willingly or unwillingly, working for the intellectual elite, and for the male powers of the state.

Some dominatrixes have their own work areas, which they own and pay for themselves, but other dominatrixes rent so-called dungeons, and pay money to the owners of these places, who often secretly put cameras in there, for people like social workers and academics to voyeur over, study, and to analyse them and their clients. As most dominatrixes are not true sexual dominants, these professionals, students, and academics, are getting very false information about sexually dominant or sadist women, and sexually submissive or masochist men.

Another aspect of many dominatrixes, is that psychologically, socially, and in some ways politically, they are very conservative and bourgeois, and expect very strict manners, and limited emotional and intellectual expression, from their clients and others. As consequence of this, they repress free speech, and don't engage in any open, frank, progressive, and candid conversation with others, and are thus unable to be in any way self-critical, or introspect, or have true, authentic, learning, and fulfilling relationships. They are effectively treated like very spoilt children by their sycophantic clients, and in turn, they treat their clients like children, and so it's very much a whole process and relationships of infantilisation and regression.

There are some pro-lifestyle domintrixes around, who I have some respect and regard for, but many dominatrixes are sexually submissive towards their male, or female, partners in their lives (usually male partners strangely enough), and so yet again, they are not true, authentic, and fully-fledged sexual dominants. The other criticism I have of dominatrixes, is that most of them are just too individualistic, and fail to organise socially to be truly autonomous from men, or to change society towards a genuinely matriarchal direction. These dominatrixes are socially alienated, exploited, and unable to teach and learn with their clients in any passionate, progressive, and fulfilling way, and often they are all jealous of each other.

Joan of Arc The Messenger

2008-08-19T05:29:00.001-07:00

I like watching films because one can get a more artistic and different perspectives on different subject matters, and music also gives me a better understanding of things in terms of understanding changing and creating forms. The film Joan of Arc The Messenger goes into Joan of Arc's life and hearing voices experiences, and it enlightened me on some aspects of hearing voices. The first and last parts of the film went into her hearing voices experiences, with the first part enlightening me on childhood experiences of hearing voices, and the latter part making me aware of medical psychiatric interpretations in the film.

In addressing the issue of hearing voices, the beginning of the film looked at some aspects of imagination and heightened senses, mysticism and religious experience, and then the effects and responses stemming from very painful and traumatic events - because according to the film, Joan of Arc witnessed her sister being intruded upon, killed, and then defiled by an invading English soldier, and which was supposedly a strong factor on her wanting to later take revenge on the English.

The first part of the film suggested to me that willingly and knowingly self-created voices may be a part of the natural process of the heightened senses of childhood driven by the free and creative imagination, but that a very traumatic event or events may disrupt or reverse this process.

When this process is reversed, the heightened senses take over the imaginative mastery and result in an overwhelming or traumatic perceptual experience, which then absorbs itself intrusively into the imagination or drives it. This is what the film shows very well, and what it to be most praised for. (There are lots of people around - including film writers, artists, and directors - who know a lot more about hearing voices and other mental health problems than most psychiatrists and professionals do).

So when the natural heightened sense of perception and awareness is dulled, stunted, repressed, or blocked, then the natural process of imagination and heightened senses becomes reversed, intrusive, fragmentary (hallucinatory), and negative, and that this dulling or blocking of those heightened senses occurs before any such 'splitting' or perceptual fragmentation (hallucination) occurs.

However, there is still one aspect of the beginning of the film I disagree with in its interpretation of hearing voices, and that is the matter of supposedly initially intrusive voices. The first part of the film implies that as a child Joan of Arc heard intrusive but positive voices, although we can't even assume at that age that her voices were initially intrusive (or as 'startling' as described by the Romme and Escher model as the initial 'startling phase'), because she may have well deliberately created her voices to begin with.

This is very key for me, because I believe that all voices were deliberately created or constructed during childhood, but that we forget about these origins in adult life, and to that extent we are all potential voices hearers if we suffer from abuse or very traumatic events.

The first part of the film showed how Joan of Arc organised and disorganised her voices, and the middle part of the film portrayed her voices as more rationalised and organised, when this might not have been the case because her free voices experiences were disrupted and reversed after the traumatic event of seeing her sister killed (I use the term free voices to mean those which are willingly and knowingly self-created). The ending of the film after her unfair trial and maltreatment, showed her voices to be negative, intrusive, aggressively cross-questioning, tormenting and undermining.

The middle part of the film were the battle scenes where her voices appear to be more structured in some way, and the third part of the film (about her unfair trial and execution) dealt with her hearing voices experiences very much in terms of the Freudian/superego/conscience and cognitive-behavioural professional approach to voices, and which I think is still very much psychiatric, and still very much a part of the medical model, as the medical approach denotes the causes of hearing voices as coming from just inside the person, and not (also) from environmental, external, and objective life events and experiences. In reality, hearing voices are caused by a certain combination of internal imaginative processes and external sensory perception, and to suggest otherwise is to deny a persons sensory and life-experiences.

As a character in the film, Joan of Arc came across as little bit like Marilyn Monroe (as it is more or less a Hollywood film), but the character portrayal captured the unease and mental distress of the real character, as well as her militaristic fanaticism, and her genuine courage for rebellion against tyrannical religious and state authority. The character was played quite well on the whole, but the whole film did tend to stereotype the soldiers and the women in it.

I lent the film to a friend who has just returned it, and he said he thought it was racist about the English, portraying the English as all scoundrels, rapists, and barbarians. Other than that, he didn't comment on it except to question whether the real Joan of Arc really had blond hair, because he said that she was more than likely dark-haired if she was Celtic.

According to the film, Joan of Arc did have negative voices during her mistreatment and trial which supposedly tormented her about the causes of her voices, and about her militaristic fanaticism, and these negative voices were presented in the form of a visual and audio hallucination of an angel in her prison cell (played by Dustin Hoffman) and which was called 'her conscience' in the credits. Other than that, her voices were supposedly positive and intrusive, although what was positive for her wasn'0t always what was positive for others.

It could be accurate that Joan of Arc had negative voices at the stage when she was being cross-questioned - not by psychiatrists - but by their processors the religious authorities, and it went into the aspect of her voices which were intrusive, implying that originally she didn't have negative voices, but had positive but intrusive voices.

Whether all intrusive voices are regarded as negative I'm not sure (according to Romme and Escher model they aren't necessarily negative, and you can have intrusive voices which are positive), but all intrusive voices would be regarded as negative by my high standards on the matter, and only the ones that are deliberately and consciousness self-created (or free voices) are somewhat positive.

So her voices were intrusive most of the time, and therefore interpreted as positive and "messengers" for her, but most of these intrusive voices (as far as we know) were positive for her, except (according to the film) up until her maltreatment and trial when the voices became aggressively cross-questioning, undermining, and tormenting.

The need for Changes for more Effective and Humane Treatment of Mania/Schizophrenia, Depression, Anxiety, and Psychotic Breakdown

2008-08-19T05:28:00.001-07:00

My present psychiatric diagnosis, is schizophrenia (due to hearing voices and so-called social withdrawal) with occasional depression. This diagnosis is somewhat incomplete, as I also sometimes suffer from mania, where I get very elated, have racing thoughts, and occasionally can't sleep for a whole night. Very occasionally, I don't sleep for two whole nights and days, and on these occasions, I get a burn-out effect of severe depression causing anxiety, and where the anxiety and stress again prevents me from sleeping. Then the severe depression and anxiety, co-exist alongside each other, with one exasperating the other, and thus making me more depressed and more manic or anxious.

On these occasions, I am both very mentally alert and anxious, and yet very tired at the same time, as the severe depression and anxiety, overlap at different times, although the mania or anxiety still seems to be the overall overriding factor. As a result of all of this, psychosis can arise, as the mental alertness and anxiety resides in my sleep, and the sleep or dream-state of mind, starts to manifest itself in my waking consciousness. It is on these occasions, that I find it very hard to sleep much at all, and it is then, that I sometimes experience negative and intrusive hearing voices, and some delusions.

On these occasions, when I am very depressed and anxious at the same time, I need to get short durations of rest or sleep during the day, and gradually increase the durations, and then go to sleep fairly early at night, and sleep more or less right the way through until the morning. I need to get an hour to three hours sleep during the day, to make up for some of the lost sleep at night. I have had manic-depressive, schizophrenic, or schizo-affective psychotic breakdowns before, in 1991, and in 2000, when on both occasions I was first admitted, and then went freely into psychiatric hospital, roughly for a few weeks on each occasion. I have also seen another patient, in 2000, in psychiatric hospital, who was going through very similar experiences to me, and who I tried to help.

The second time I had a breakdown and was hospitalised, I was sedated by 10 mg of Olanzapine, and which decreased the mania, anxiety, stress, and negative and intrusive hearing voices, and which also helped me sleep, but the first time I was in psychiatric hospital, I was not sedated, as I was just on a fairly low dose of 8 mg of Stelazine, and which wasn't a very strong sedative. As a result of this, and as a result of being made to stay awake all day, I had to undergo a lot of unnecessary suffering, and which could very easily have been prevented and avoided, if I was treated more effectively, appropriately, and humanely.

Psychiatrists need to realise, that people who are suffering from a manic-depressive, schizophrenic, or schizo-affective psychotic breakdown, are in great pain, distress, anxiety, and stress, and need an anti-psychotic drug which also sedates them, or a sedative along with their anti-psychotic medication. Psychiatrists also need to realise that these patients, very much need short and increased durations, of rest and sleep during the day, in order to reverse the manic-depressive, schizophrenic, or schizo-affective psychosis - to make up for lost sleep - and to ease their way back into a sound and well-balanced sleep pattern. Most psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses, now realise this, when a patient is admitted to psychiatric hospital, for the first few days, but sometimes these patients are prevented from short durations of rest or sleep during the day, and from the moment they arrive, and which slows down the recovery process and good sleep patterning, and which also prolongs the psychosis. .

My present psychiatric medication is 3 mg of Risperdal a day for hearing voices. Risperdal is fine for hearing voices, but in any dosage, it is not an effective sedative for the mania or anxiety I sometimes experience. I was taking Olanzapine before I was changed onto Risperdal, and which did sedate the occasional mania, anxiety, or stress, and help me sleep, as it is a strong sedative, but I had to come off of Olanzapine, because it can cause or increase diabetes and weight gain.

I very much need my psychiatrist, to make a prescription for me, for a sedative, so I can take it when the need arises, and to arrange this with my GP, to be added onto my regular prescription, so I can put a tick next to it, and collect it from the chemist as the need arises. I have requested this twice before, but all that has happened is that my Risperdal dosage was increased, as it was still believed by two separate psychiatrists, that I was experiencing stress and anxiety due to schizophrenia. This also means, that the psychiatrists need to add to my current diagnosis, from schizophrenia with some depression, to schizo-affective, and so I am treated and medicated humanely and properly.

I saw my psychiatrist recently, and gave him a letter explaining the main points of all of this. His first response, was to say that I was not schizo-affective or experiencing mania, and that he had seen no signs of these symptoms in me. I commented that when I am manic, he isn't there with me to see me, and that he would have to live with me, or experience what I do, to see signs or symptoms of mania. He said that I wasn't manic, because mania has three main aspects to it: 1. Motor movement symptoms, 2. Mood symptoms, and 3. Thought symptoms. I explained to him that I did have racing thoughts, elation, and restlessness when I am manic, and when I can't sleep for a whole night or nights, but he said that I don't have manic motor movements, and that the racing thoughts, elation, and restlessness were caused by the Risperdal that I take, and that I still didn't have all three components to mania.

My psychiatrist then said, that I suffer from neither classic manic depression disorder nor classic schizophrenia, because I had a lot of insight into my mental health problems, and that most manic-depressives and schizophrenics have no insight into their own mental health problems. He said that I was suffering from a mental illness because I hear voices, and that I also suffer from stress, and from the side-effects of the Risperdal anti-psychotic medication that I take. In response to my request, he has now prescribed me a sedative (1 mg of Lorazepam), to be added onto my repeat prescription, and to be used as the need arises, and he suggested that he doubled the strength of my sleeping tablets, and which I have agreed to.

So it is the case that me and my psychiatrist, have a fundamental disagreement about my diagnosis. I say I sometimes suffer from mania, and he says that I don't, but that I suffer from a mental illness and stress. One criticism I have of some of what he said, is that he is taking a very textbook, extreme, black and white thinking view, of what is mania and what isn't, because there are various degrees of it, but I think that I do get the occasional manic episodes or cycles. I am prepared to admit that I could be wrong, or that the mania is actually something different, like stress, as he suggests, but he never says that he doesn't know, or that he could be wrong. He is a bit of a know-all, and always thinks that he is right. He can also never seem to agree to differ with me, but instead seems to militate against what I say, if it is different from his own opinions and explanations.

The other main criticism I have, of some of what my psychiatrist said, in our latest session, is that I don't have classic manic-depression or schizophrenia, because I have a lot of insight into my own mental health problems. I agree with him, that I have a lot of insight into my own mental health problems, but it is not just insight about my own mental health problems, but also based upon my observations and interactions with other psychiatric-diagnosed people. I am also able to be receptive, to the mental health problems of others, and internalise their thinking-patterns or similar experiences, so I can learn about this, teach others about it, and understand and help them.

The other point, is that there are reasons why most psychiatric-diagnosed people do not have insight into their own mental health problems, as they are discouraged from doing so by most psychiatry, social work, and the mental health system. The rule of confidentiality, is often misused to prevent people from seeking the causes or influences to their mental health problems, and for finding solutions, and from sharing their experiences, and learning and teaching with others. Most psychiatric-diagnosed people, are encouraged to be very selfish about their mental health problems, and to remain very ignorant and secretive about it, including many of those diagnosed people, who see themselves as outspoken users of services, or psychiatric survivors.