<div dir="auto">Saw this on Facebook<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://photos.app.goo.gl/ogQSsx7ahJ2utqdR8">https://photos.app.goo.gl/ogQSsx7ahJ2utqdR8</a><br><br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">---<br>Frank C. Wimberly<br>140 Calle Ojo Feliz, <br>Santa Fe, NM 87505<br><br>505 670-9918<br>Santa Fe, NM</div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jan 24, 2023, 5:31 PM Steve Smith <<a href="mailto:sasmyth@swcp.com">sasmyth@swcp.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>As usual, I wasn't seeking anything near as crisp as I think you
are. I was merely making the observation that norm-to-norm, we
often smear one into another. I think your "hearing voices"
example is quite apt: <br>
</p>
<p><a href="https://www.hearing-voices.org/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://www.hearing-voices.org/</a> <br>
</p>
<p>I think I agree with your implication that at best there may be a
spectrum of "mental states" which go from "pro-social" to
"anti-social" in any given social context. When first I
encountered the term "neurodiverse" I felt relieved of the
need/habit/expectation to classify every behaviour or presentation
or implied mental state as "healthy or unhealthy".<br>
</p>
<p>That does not, however, imply that mental states (or complexes of
them?) can't also be on a range from "pro-survival" to
"anti-survival" (again, in a given physical context). The basis
vectors of social and physical surely overlap... for example,
"running out in front of a stampeding buffalo herd and waving your
arms wildly" is not particularly conducive to individual survival
when done in isolation, however, when done in coordination with a
tribe of spear-wielding hunters and a blind canyon or cliff, maybe
it is *highly* pro-survival (as well as pro-social). Or maybe for
some it is just "anxiety relief" before bungee jumping was
invented?<br>
</p>
<p>What I was trying to highlight maybe was what you more succinctly
stated: <br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"anything we classify as "mental illness" is hopelessly
ill-defined and would be better defined in terms of context"</p>
</blockquote>
<div>On 1/24/23 5:01 PM, glen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">I
triggered when I read this and I'm not sure why. I think it's
because, in order to well-define some concept of "mental", you
have to isolate it from other things ... like "body" or
environment. This might even go so far as to isolate it from the
biochemical processes in the brain.
<br>
<br>
If you refuse to isolate it, then there's no such thing as
"mental", except as an abstraction from body, environment, social
interaction, etc. That makes your inference trivial. If you accept
the isolation, then the mental can be independent of the social,
which refutes your inference [⛧].
<br>
<br>
And I don't *think* it matters where you draw the isolation
boundary. It could be that biochemical/electric in the brain is
(part of) the mental, but we isolate that from the body. Or it
could be that mental is (in part) the brain and the body, but we
isolate the organism from its environment. Etc. In each case, the
inference you make is either trivial or refuted.
<br>
<br>
Perhaps what you're actually expressing is that there is no such
thing as "mental"; and that anything we classify as "mental
illness" is hopelessly ill-defined and would be better defined in
terms of context. Whether that context is brain+body+environment
or just environment doesn't matter so much as the identifying of
"mental" as a fiction.
<br>
<br>
<br>
[⛧] Refutes it in the absence of some clarifying premise that you
may have left out. E.g. if you added a shared values premise, say,
that most people don't hear voices, so it's "healthy" to not hear
voices, but ill to hear voices, then there can be "mental
illness". If you really don't have an unstated premise about
mental norms or somesuch, and any mental state can be just as OK
as any other mental state, then it refutes it by nonsense. No
"mental illness" means no way to bind it to the social.
<br>
<br>
On 1/24/23 15:40, Steve Smith wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I have also held the un(der)founded
opinion that a great deal of what we consider to be a *mental*
illness is actually a *social* illness: the cognitive
dissonance experienced with one's social context can be
something "wrong" with both/either the individual or their
context.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom <a href="https://bit.ly/virtualfriam" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>
to (un)subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br>
archives: 5/2017 thru present <a href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a><br>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a><br>
</blockquote></div>