Post by Admin on Aug 4, 2017 21:40:00 GMT
talking about dualism — like in the previous thread — through the articulation of made-up opposing natures (like a matter-less mind and a matter-full body that interact), we arrive to a binary structuralisation of the world that not just imbues our language with, but is also made apparently true by it, therefore shaping our perception and knowledge of the world.
we talk about the day and the night as if they were opposing forces — but this is only by language and culture. the night is not the opposite of the day, it is the day itself minus one element (which in turn creates a different environment), or perhaps the day is the night itself plus one element, and all situations would be equally relevant, though only if we are situated on the surface of a sphere with a certain set of conditions.
but this element we are subtracting or adding here, is it really a definitive unity?
from the 'dayest’ point of the day to the ‘nightest’ point in the night (let’s suppose the 12pm and 00.00 hours respectively), isn’t there many more other ‘points' in between than just those two? aren’t the ever changing morning and evening longer than the 12pm minute and the 00.00 minute?
it is only a way of speaking, but is it, or by extension also a way of thinking? this is how culture and language work in the brain: they reprogram it.
why do we human beings insist on making definitions so thick that cut spectra in two cleanly distinctive blocks, instead of delving and enjoying the elasticity and dimension in between?
it feels like there’s an inherent need in humanity to simplify for easiness and speed when reacting or deciding, and this is not bad and certainly useful, yet, via language, we are missing a great deal of nuance that could very well serve, in turn, for a greater easiness and enjoyment of our environment. after all, life’s aim is not to survive, but to thrive — survival merely aids the thriving process.
In the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatry association, used in the US (and by cultural extension referent for the rest of the world) by the mental health body, the pharmaceuticals, the legal system, etc., this dualistic system of classification is similarly used to categorise most of the disorders recorded; as if the disorder could only either be switched on or not. one of the critiques the DSM has is, precisely, the lack of spectrum perspective, and the accumulation of terms as distinctive disorders, based on symptomatology and not etiology. For instance, cyclothymia is considered a mild form of bipolar syndrome, yet bipolar syndrome is recorded as a different scenario, when in reality it is exactly the same problem on a spectrum. why are they termed as different categories?
one of the issues with this 'switch on or off' kind of approach to mental health and health in general, is that in most cases, the gradient that does exist in between but we are so blind to recognise, is context to a very large number of individuals that might just be surviving, instead of thriving, but would not do anything about it (ie seeking help), because our culture and language dont consider those particular parts of the gradient as 'switched on’, and therefore, are ignored all together. this is a semantic problem of humanity.
it could also happen that this culture of division in mental health language directly severs gradients that were once somehow in place. the reason for this is, again, because it follows a symptomatology approach rather than an etiology one. that is, it makes it easy for clinicians to prescribe drugs and therapy to ease the symptoms rather than find the sources and causes of the symptoms. sure, every patient wants to relieve pains, discomforts and anxieties, but shouldn’t the mental health bodies go further and investigate the root as part of a diagnostic routine? and wouldnt the root be source of other disorders in the same spectrum? which others, and what could we do with the new clues this approach could facilitate? shouldn't this semantically dimensional approach to health be a public, commonplace habit?
can we improve the language framing diagnosis? can we, the general public, become more aware of how this particular language works?
we talk about the day and the night as if they were opposing forces — but this is only by language and culture. the night is not the opposite of the day, it is the day itself minus one element (which in turn creates a different environment), or perhaps the day is the night itself plus one element, and all situations would be equally relevant, though only if we are situated on the surface of a sphere with a certain set of conditions.
but this element we are subtracting or adding here, is it really a definitive unity?
from the 'dayest’ point of the day to the ‘nightest’ point in the night (let’s suppose the 12pm and 00.00 hours respectively), isn’t there many more other ‘points' in between than just those two? aren’t the ever changing morning and evening longer than the 12pm minute and the 00.00 minute?
it is only a way of speaking, but is it, or by extension also a way of thinking? this is how culture and language work in the brain: they reprogram it.
why do we human beings insist on making definitions so thick that cut spectra in two cleanly distinctive blocks, instead of delving and enjoying the elasticity and dimension in between?
it feels like there’s an inherent need in humanity to simplify for easiness and speed when reacting or deciding, and this is not bad and certainly useful, yet, via language, we are missing a great deal of nuance that could very well serve, in turn, for a greater easiness and enjoyment of our environment. after all, life’s aim is not to survive, but to thrive — survival merely aids the thriving process.
In the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatry association, used in the US (and by cultural extension referent for the rest of the world) by the mental health body, the pharmaceuticals, the legal system, etc., this dualistic system of classification is similarly used to categorise most of the disorders recorded; as if the disorder could only either be switched on or not. one of the critiques the DSM has is, precisely, the lack of spectrum perspective, and the accumulation of terms as distinctive disorders, based on symptomatology and not etiology. For instance, cyclothymia is considered a mild form of bipolar syndrome, yet bipolar syndrome is recorded as a different scenario, when in reality it is exactly the same problem on a spectrum. why are they termed as different categories?
one of the issues with this 'switch on or off' kind of approach to mental health and health in general, is that in most cases, the gradient that does exist in between but we are so blind to recognise, is context to a very large number of individuals that might just be surviving, instead of thriving, but would not do anything about it (ie seeking help), because our culture and language dont consider those particular parts of the gradient as 'switched on’, and therefore, are ignored all together. this is a semantic problem of humanity.
it could also happen that this culture of division in mental health language directly severs gradients that were once somehow in place. the reason for this is, again, because it follows a symptomatology approach rather than an etiology one. that is, it makes it easy for clinicians to prescribe drugs and therapy to ease the symptoms rather than find the sources and causes of the symptoms. sure, every patient wants to relieve pains, discomforts and anxieties, but shouldn’t the mental health bodies go further and investigate the root as part of a diagnostic routine? and wouldnt the root be source of other disorders in the same spectrum? which others, and what could we do with the new clues this approach could facilitate? shouldn't this semantically dimensional approach to health be a public, commonplace habit?
can we improve the language framing diagnosis? can we, the general public, become more aware of how this particular language works?