I wonder if a lot of conditions we see as mental problems can be best described as a difference between the view of one's self v. how the society has forced (or tried to force) the person to live in opposition to that view.
As I've written before, I think a great deal of human behavior can be explained with a model that tells us that the human self is made up of everything we accept into it about how we view the universe and our place in it. When that individual self is challenged or voluntarily changed, the person has to go through a process of limited suicide because the self, in its current configuration, is being killed. That goes against a core human instinct, making it very difficult and results in substantial side-effects.
In most cases it is likely that we accept the self we are and, despite a few minor challenges, make due and get on with things. But, what if, for some people, the self never really absorbs the conditions in which it lives. For whatever reason, it just can't make the adjustment and acceptance never happens. The self would be in a constant state of battle with (and within) its conditions. It seems that it wouldn't be too big of a leap to suggest the result could be mental instability.
Metaphorically, it could be like one of the causes of sea sickness where the motion felt by the inner ear is not matched to the stability the eye sees when below deck. The cure is to go above deck and look at the horizon which will provide a visual motion to match the input from the inner ear.
Similarly, if a person can't get "above deck" to match up the view of the universe through the self and the "real" universe, sickness could be the result. Coping mechanisms may be attempted that result in mild bouts of "illness" we might label as quirks or minor mental conditions. But for some people the differences are too great or last too long to result in a self that can function in the society it sees as so in opposition to it. For these people mild coping mechanisms don't work and more pronounced behaviors and conditions come forth.
One of the ways this manifests itself is through the claim of "truth" in a person's or group's view of things. The verifiable universe is somehow faulty and their version is valid because of this special truth which they have acquired. Instead of looking for verification of their view, they look to discredit the verified claims of others, even if it means creating a new version of "truth."
Some of these behaviors are not even seen as problems when they manifest themselves through religious or political avenues. When someone has a view of the world that doesn't match what's really going on, we can end up with extreme personalities coming forward to "make things right." Those with similar mismatched mindsets will join their fight in order to not have to change their self, which would be suicide (at least partially).
When human behavior is views in this way, it's possible to come up with new approaches to deal with this problem, I think. Being aware of what we do and, more importantly, why we do it can only make things better.
As I've written before, I think a great deal of human behavior can be explained with a model that tells us that the human self is made up of everything we accept into it about how we view the universe and our place in it. When that individual self is challenged or voluntarily changed, the person has to go through a process of limited suicide because the self, in its current configuration, is being killed. That goes against a core human instinct, making it very difficult and results in substantial side-effects.
In most cases it is likely that we accept the self we are and, despite a few minor challenges, make due and get on with things. But, what if, for some people, the self never really absorbs the conditions in which it lives. For whatever reason, it just can't make the adjustment and acceptance never happens. The self would be in a constant state of battle with (and within) its conditions. It seems that it wouldn't be too big of a leap to suggest the result could be mental instability.
Metaphorically, it could be like one of the causes of sea sickness where the motion felt by the inner ear is not matched to the stability the eye sees when below deck. The cure is to go above deck and look at the horizon which will provide a visual motion to match the input from the inner ear.
Similarly, if a person can't get "above deck" to match up the view of the universe through the self and the "real" universe, sickness could be the result. Coping mechanisms may be attempted that result in mild bouts of "illness" we might label as quirks or minor mental conditions. But for some people the differences are too great or last too long to result in a self that can function in the society it sees as so in opposition to it. For these people mild coping mechanisms don't work and more pronounced behaviors and conditions come forth.
One of the ways this manifests itself is through the claim of "truth" in a person's or group's view of things. The verifiable universe is somehow faulty and their version is valid because of this special truth which they have acquired. Instead of looking for verification of their view, they look to discredit the verified claims of others, even if it means creating a new version of "truth."
Some of these behaviors are not even seen as problems when they manifest themselves through religious or political avenues. When someone has a view of the world that doesn't match what's really going on, we can end up with extreme personalities coming forward to "make things right." Those with similar mismatched mindsets will join their fight in order to not have to change their self, which would be suicide (at least partially).
When human behavior is views in this way, it's possible to come up with new approaches to deal with this problem, I think. Being aware of what we do and, more importantly, why we do it can only make things better.
No comments:
Post a Comment