Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Posted: March 06 2011 at 15:14
ExittheLemming wrote:
I think insanity has now been broadly monopolised by the legal profession i.e. it no longer denotes a particular mental state or mode of behaviour, but just a form of defence via diminished responsibility etc
Behaviour that is outside societal norms is no help to us here at all alas i.e. what is acceptable conduct in some cultures is viewed as 'completely deranged' in others (e.g. the English actually like cricket, go figure) I've long been fascinated by those artists who seem to exist on the 'precipice of wholeness' while producing their greatest work but very often 'step off the edge' into the abyss of incoherence never to return e.g. Syd Barrett, Nietzsche, Jim Morrison, Artaud etc
As to what constitutes mental health or mental illness erm...perhaps behaviour that endangers oneself or potentially endangers others might be in the ball park?
What about drink-driving? Potentially dangerous behaviours do not equal mental illness and the majority of people with mental illness are not violent. However, a person may be detained in hospital if he meets the criteria for mental illness and is a danger to self/others.
Joined: November 17 2008
Location: Indiana, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1584
Posted: March 06 2011 at 15:18
I'd say first you have to have a standard to judge by, which since no two people see the world exactly the same, is probably not possible. But still, it's easy to see how most people act and compare the person who is arguably insane to them within your own mind. But I think the main factor that people would judge insanity by is if the insane person is able to contribute to society or to "fit in" despite their unusual behavior. Bahhh... we're all insane.
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Posted: March 07 2011 at 07:37
The concept of insanity has been around for a long time and in the ancient world madness was thought to come from the gods, e.g. Nebuchadnezzar’s delusion of clinical lycanthropy. I guess what we’re talking about here are the functional disorders (rather than organic disorders that have an identifiable cause) and the manner in which those disorders, such as Schizophrenia, manifest themselves in abnormalities of emotion, cognition and behaviour. We are what we are, but often we are defined by what we are not. Morality and laws are largely concerned with negative behaviours, with the things that we don’t do rather than what we do.
Schizophrenia also has negative symptoms, not just the positive/florid symptoms that some people may tend to think of; things like lack of motivation, flattening of mood, etc. Schizophrenia isn’t even a single condition with a single set of diagnostic criteria (at least seven types, before you even think about schizo-affective disorders). Disease is a concept that changes over time and may have no real existence in itself; people used to be locked away in asylums because they suffered epilepsy or because they exposed themselves in public. Psychiatric disorders are usually diagnosed through the patient’s subjective experiences, and the value judgements of those making the diagnosis. I can’t provide figures for the number of successful appeals against compulsory detentions, but the fact remains that appeals are successful. Two different doctors might make different diagnoses of the same individual; the same doctor might make two different diagnoses on two separate admissions of the same individual.
The anti-psychiatry movement that peaked in the 1960s questioned the empirical approach and the medical model, and although its main ideas have subsequently been discredited the movement did raise valid and interesting ideas. Normality is enforced conformity; labelling people as ‘mentally ill’ is a device that society uses to maintain order; society stigmatises the individual and adds to his problems. Glaswegian psychiatrist R. D. Laing viewed illness as ‘the reality which we have lost touch with’ and he even advocated the use of recreational psychedelics. Laing stressed social and environmental factors; symptoms weren’t markers of illness but reactions to stress, e.g. the double bind theory, when one parent says a child is good and the other says the child is bad. The child cannot decide on behaviour, the family can be viewed as dysfunctional and in the broader sense so as can society itself. We all carry concepts of one another, of how we see others and expect others to see us, and here Laing was influenced by the existential philosophy of the likes of Jean-Paul Sartre. For Sartre the ‘self’ is not constant, we adopt different roles and the Superego acts as a filter in restricting our drives. Sartre described the self-deception of ‘bad faith’ where one denies one’s freedom to choose, instead of being true to our own selves.
This ties in with the work of Erving Goffman who defined stigma as ‘the process by which the reaction of others spoils normal identity’. We all put on an act in social interactions to make desired impressions on others. Goffman commented on the segregation of the mentally ill, subject to different rules from society. Russell Barton developed Goffman’s ideas on the ‘wharehousing’ of people and coined the term ‘Institutional Neurosis’ where individuals are robbed of all individuality, inability to make decisions/plan ahead. As recently as thirty years ago there was the phenomenon of ‘schizophrenic trousers’, i.e. schizophrenic patients in long-stay institutions were noted to wear trousers that were too short in the leg, hence ‘schizophrenic trousers’. Of course this says more about society, about the standards of care and the prevailing attitudes to these people at that time. And even today, nanny society seems to want us all to fit in as ‘good patients’.
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
Posted: March 07 2011 at 10:23
While there is a continuum, mental illness is a real thing. It's not just deviation from normal behavior, whatever that is.
Insanity is a non-technical term in 2011, and it is reasonable to say that it's pointless to try to pick a specific line where mental illness actually becomes "insane." Some people with heavy disease burden can still function reasonably.
Of course they have Adonis DNA, which other mere mortals only wish for.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: March 07 2011 at 11:33
Vibrationbaby wrote:
This is insane. And the pilot isn't even a nazi.
parallax view
...for the sake of those viewing in monochrome, the wingspan of a F-14 is approx 64 feet and the height of an average Joe about 6 feet - proportionally the people in the photograph are 1.5 times bigger than the plane¹, which means the plane is 1.5 times further away from the camera. Assuming a 135mm lens, with a viewing angle of 10º, then the people are approximately 500 feet from the camera, and the aircraft is 750 feet away - or the distance between the aircraft and the people is 250 feet. The other point to observe is that the are standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier - this is evident because the starboard wing-tip is below the deck-line - this suggests that the aircraft is also about 250 feet away from the deck of the boat. Also the flight-deck of a USS aircraft carrier is approximately 250 feet above sea level, so the plane must also be 250 feet above the wave-tops. So while it is certainly an impressive piece of flying the aircraft, pilot and co-pilot are 250 feet from any danger in all directions - so from the pilot's perspective it's a perfectly calculated piece of flying [during a staged flying display I may add] and not especially crazy.
¹ in the image the plane is aproximately 7 times bigger than the people - it should be 10.66 times bigger (64/6), therefore the people look 10.66/7=1.52 times bigger.
Joined: August 11 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8777
Posted: March 07 2011 at 11:45
Dean wrote:
Vibrationbaby wrote:
This is insane. And the pilot isn't even a nazi.
parallax view
...for the sake of those viewing in monochrome, the wingspan of a F-14 is approx 64 feet and the height of an average Joe about 6 feet - proportionally the people in the photograph are 1.5 times bigger than the plane, which means the plane is 1.5 times further away from the camera. Assuming a 135mm lens, with a viewing angle of 10º, then the people are approximately 500 feet from the camera, and the aircraft is 750 feet away - or the distance between the aircraft and the people is 250 feet. The other point to observe is that the are standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier - this is evident because the starboard wing-tip is below the deck-line - this suggests that the aircraft is also about 250 feet away from the deck of the boat. Also the flight-deck of a USS aircraft carrier is approximately 250 feet above sea level, so the plane must also be 250 feet above the wave-tops. So while it is certainly an impressive piece of flying the aircraft, pilot and co-pilot are 250 feet from any danger in all directions - so from the pilot's perspective it's a perfectly calculated piece of flying [during a staged flying display I may add] and not especially crazy.
If mental illness runs in your family it is debatable how you, yourself, have been influenced or how that illness has had an affect on you personally from growing up around the environment itself. It would seem according to the majority of society, that when it comes to family, you are expected to take the responsiblity of your kin. This is okay within itself however, some individuals who collect from the state and have been documented with an illness are smart enough to exploit your life by specifically misusing you because they resent you. They can destroy your opportunities in the work force. It can become a nightmare of events in your life.
You might be a naturally shy person that keeps to themselves. Because those around you who personally know of your brother or sister with mental issues, you are thrusted upon the stand before the jury. You will be confronted for the rest of your life. They will make cruel judgements on you because you are a blood relation to that person. Guilty by association. It's perfectly natural for people in society to feel this way and question your behaviour......even if you are quiet and well behaved, keeping to yourself. It may very well be that you are in control of your life, loving, plain and simple, while people around you will persist that something is deadly wrong with you. This is not good. It can develop depression, cause you missed opportunities, lower your confidence, destroy your marriage, and years later....you find yourself seeking council hoping it might change your life.
It never ends! If your family member resents you for an early part of your life and now for many years you have changed your entire life, living differently, raising children, it will not register in their mind. They will haunt you about your annoying past! Something that you have let go of when you finalized your decision 10 years ago is suddenly thrust upon you in front of your children. Because your family member has a mental illness they cannot or will not see into the future or understand change in humans. You will endlessly be compared to your kin. Not a good situation to be in.
Joined: February 13 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 6898
Posted: March 07 2011 at 14:43
Dean wrote:
Vibrationbaby wrote:
This is insane. And the pilot isn't even a nazi.
parallax view
...for the sake of those viewing in monochrome, the wingspan of a F-14 is approx 64 feet and the height of an average Joe about 6 feet - proportionally the people in the photograph are 1.5 times bigger than the plane¹, which means the plane is 1.5 times further away from the camera. Assuming a 135mm lens, with a viewing angle of 10º, then the people are approximately 500 feet from the camera, and the aircraft is 750 feet away - or the distance between the aircraft and the people is 250 feet. The other point to observe is that the are standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier - this is evident because the starboard wing-tip is below the deck-line - this suggests that the aircraft is also about 250 feet away from the deck of the boat. Also the flight-deck of a USS aircraft carrier is approximately 250 feet above sea level, so the plane must also be 250 feet above the wave-tops. So while it is certainly an impressive piece of flying the aircraft, pilot and co-pilot are 250 feet from any danger in all directions - so from the pilot's perspective it's a perfectly calculated piece of flying [during a staged flying display I may add] and not especially crazy.
¹ in the image the plane is aproximately 7 times bigger than the people - it should be 10.66 times bigger (64/6), therefore the people look 10.66/7=1.52 times bigger.
Pilot's commentary :
" It's not risky at all with practice. It was my opening pass in an F-14 Tomcat tactical demo at sea. It started from the starboard quarter of the carrier slightly below deck level. Airspeed was about 210 kt. with the wings swept forward. I selected afterburner at about a half a mile out, and the aircraft accelerated to 350 kt. As I approached the fantail I rolled into an 85 degree bank and did a hard 50 degree turn finishing about 50 to 20 degrees off the boat's axis. Microseconds after the photo was taken after rolling wings level at an altitude slightly above the flight deck I pulled vertical with a quarter roll to the left ending with an immelman roll out at 90 degrees and continued with the rest of the demo.''
No mean feat. Guess it helped that the guy had over 4,000 hours on Tomcats. This photo has been plastered all over the net with different captions. Contrary to some of these the pilot was not grounded for 30 days. Pilot was Dale Snodrass who ended his carreer with most F-14 hours.
I think insanity has now been broadly monopolised by the legal profession i.e. it no longer denotes a particular mental state or mode of behaviour, but just a form of defence via diminished responsibility etc
Behaviour that is outside societal norms is no help to us here at all alas i.e. what is acceptable conduct in some cultures is viewed as 'completely deranged' in others (e.g. the English actually like cricket, go figure) I've long been fascinated by those artists who seem to exist on the 'precipice of wholeness' while producing their greatest work but very often 'step off the edge' into the abyss of incoherence never to return e.g. Syd Barrett, Nietzsche, Jim Morrison, Artaud etc
As to what constitutes mental health or mental illness erm...perhaps behaviour that endangers oneself or potentially endangers others might be in the ball park?
What about drink-driving? Potentially dangerous behaviours do not equal mental illness and the majority of people with mental illness are not violent. However, a person may be detained in hospital if he meets the criteria for mental illness and is a danger to self/others.
Point taken, I clearly don't know what constitutes mental health or otherwise but I'd hazard that like myself, the OP has some serious misgivings as to the credibility of meets the criteria as defined by the so-called experts in the field. (Hence the thread?)
(Strictly tongue in cheek) Madness results when the self employed cross their own picket lines.
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
Posted: March 08 2011 at 08:49
This guy was basically always joking, always cynical, always saying things just to get a rise out of people. It was always difficult to tell where he was serious and when he was joking. He loved the unrest this caused, but it was also a source of humor for everyone around him.
But he always used to say "Never believe your own bullsh*t."
You when you start to believe your own made up stories, you're in trouble.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
This guy was basically always joking, always cynical, always saying things just to get a rise out of people. It was always difficult to tell where he was serious and when he was joking. He loved the unrest this caused, but it was also a source of humor for everyone around him.
But he always used to say "Never believe your own bullsh*t."
You when you start to believe your own made up stories, you're in trouble.
I'm not trying to be disagreeable here and you can call me paranoid if you like Jay, but is this a typo or a warning?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.366 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.