Kevin's Watch

Suffering builds character.

--A

Avatar wrote:Suffering builds character.

--A

except when it builds fear, failure, surrender, death, desperation, rage, or just more suffering.
I suppose you could call those "character"...but not good character, or strong character.

Vraith wrote:

Avatar wrote:Suffering builds character.

--A

except when it builds fear, failure, surrender, death, desperation, rage, or just more suffering.
I suppose you could call those "character"...but not good character, or strong character.

I've come to believe that suffering is not a choice, how we react to it is a choice.

lorin wrote:

Vraith wrote:

Avatar wrote:Suffering builds character.

--A

except when it builds fear, failure, surrender, death, desperation, rage, or just more suffering.
I suppose you could call those "character"...but not good character, or strong character.

I've come to believe that suffering is not a choice, how we react to it is a choice.

Statistically/in aggregate, I can sorta get behind this. In an ultimate sense, not. Because we all, every single one of us, are breakable. Most of us, especially in the modern world, are lucky cuz we never confront...naked, alone, and unprepared...the particular thing that will break us.
Mostly we face things we fear might break us, but find out can't [even if it hurts...and that can be an upside], or things that break pieces of us, but that we can live without [though life would be better if we had them...for ourselves, and the people around us who have to live with detritus we don't even notice we leave scattered around].

Vraith wrote:

Avatar wrote:Suffering builds character.

--A

except when it builds fear, failure, surrender, death, desperation, rage, or just more suffering.
I suppose you could call those "character"...but not good character, or strong character.

Fine, surviving suffering builds character.

--A

Shameless bit of self-promotion here: I've posted a poem in haiku about depression in the Hall of Gifts. All views and comments welcome.

Beyond appeasing my ego, I'm pimping myself here because I'm especially interested in the reactions of participants in this thread. If I've done it right, it will mean a lot more to most of you than people who haven't suffered depression.

Go let me know what you think, and don't be afraid to be brutally honest!

Interesting, will check it out... in a bit.

LM- what's "narrative therapy"?

Also, anyone know much about EMDR?

Cambo wrote: If I've done it right, it will mean a lot more to most of you than people who haven't suffered depression.

I'm trying to imagine the monster or superman that has never been depressed - an emotional reaction at times called by other names.

rusmeister wrote:

Cambo wrote: If I've done it right, it will mean a lot more to most of you than people who haven't suffered depression.

I'm trying to imagine the monster or superman that has never been depressed - an emotional reaction at times called by other names.

I'm talking about depression the mental illness- emotional reactions are a different beast altogether.

What's the dividing line though?

--A

Avatar wrote:What's the dividing line though?

--A

Tricky. I don't like to draw lines in the sand, but at the same time I'm convinced there's a distiction between being depressed as an emotional reaction and as a mental illness.

The obvious one is that the emotional reaction requires an initial event to react to, whereas the mental illness can arise of itself. But then it gets really murky, because you can have delayed emotional reactions, reactions to an event you can't consciously identify, and of course normal emotional reactions can lead to fully fledged depressive episodes.

So, in short...I don't know . Maybe Loremaster might have some clinical guidelines to share?

At a guess, I'm going to say for it to be an illness, it has to be physiological...brain not producing the right chemicals and stuff.

That's why I'm always troubled by the term "mental illness."

--A

Avatar wrote:At a guess, I'm going to say for it to be an illness, it has to be physiological...brain not producing the right chemicals and stuff.

That's why I'm always troubled by the term "mental illness."

--A

Hmm. Depression caused by chemical levels in the brain certainly qualifies as an illness. But what about mental problems rooted in events, such as PTSD, or disorders like OCD?

Do these have to be traced back to chemicals to be counted illnesses?

Well, that's my question. Mental problems rooted in events are psychological, not physiological. And surely therefore not technically an illness.

--A

Miriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary wrote:illness n: An unhealthy condition of body or mind.

I've never thought of illness being exclusive to physiological disorders. I searched several definitions, none of them excluded psychological illness, and the above seems to actively include it.

One definite human tendency is to see oneself as exceptional. If we can classify ourselves as an exception to the general rule of humankind, we generally do so.

One can be deeply depressed, regularly and for long periods - and the nature of the 'illness' - if it be deemed such - may be spiritual rather than physical.

But this, I think is common, and not exceptional, and if an illness, then it is quite a common one, and one not effectively treated by physical medicines, but by a holistic approach that correctly understands the nature of the human spirit, which most views, if not all, cannot completely do if only by the evidence that they contradict each other. The only truly reliable treatment, then will be the one that actually does proceed from that complete and correct understanding.

I don't believe there's a complete and correct understanding when it comes to people's psyches and how they deal with depression and other disorders. What works for me is unlikely to work for you.

I do agree, though, that there are spiritual maladies, which is why I'm a big supporter of transpersonal psychology.

Avatar wrote:Well, that's my question. Mental problems rooted in events are psychological, not physiological. And surely therefore not technically an illness.

Do I sense a return to a false mind-body dichotomy?

A book on this subject that I encountered a few years back, "The Masks of Melancholy," pointed out that mental illness operates on "the stuff" which is already in our minds. (except it was said in a much better way!)

Take the example of the insane woman who is obsessed with some political figure... (I know this might seem to trivial, but..) if she didn't know that the Prime Ministers existed - and perhaps also if she didnt' have certain DESIRES somehow a PART of her (part of "who she is" even during her non-depressive periods) she wouldn't be ranting about an imaginary affair that she had with the Prime Minister.

Cambo wrote:I don't believe there's a complete and correct understanding when it comes to people's psyches and how they deal with depression and other disorders. What works for me is unlikely to work for you.

I do agree, though, that there are spiritual maladies, which is why I'm a big supporter of transpersonal psychology.

It seems obvious to me what transpersonal psychology is, but I'm afraid you wouldn't want to hear what I see.

But when you say "There is no complete and correct understanding" I have to say "Balderdash!". You may argue that no one has such an understanding, but the universal negative is very often quite difficult to defend - but affirming that it doesn't exist at all is simply to say that there is no truth at all - for the statement implies that even a super or godlike intelligence would not be able to have such an understanding which does not exist.

And this language of "working" again... It seems to mean, 'pleases me or makes me happy', and regardless is a means of avoiding the question of what is true. And every statement we make is an affirmation of some truth or other, even in the very denial of truth - which is the ultimate self-contradiction in those who deny truth. I think the case is actually that such people (who deny truth in one way or another) speak of their own truths at times, and when faced with self-contradiction, deny truth in general, very often not in those words, but by speaking of "what works", or other language that has nothing to do with the ancient philosophical question of truth. The person who does not know truth must stand aside for the person who does.
I could care less about what 'works' for me, you or anyone. I ask, "Is it TRUE or not?"

rusmeister wrote:And this language of "working" again... It seems to mean, 'pleases me or makes me happy', and regardless is a means of avoiding the question of what is true.

No. You are under a serious misapprehension -- one that denigrates every Watcher who does not agree with you.

"Working", in this sense, means that the person in question has examined his or her beliefs, weighed them against their understanding of the world, and found the two to be in agreement. It is, in fact, the very same process that *you* underwent when you adopted Orthodoxy.

It is NOT an offhand, eeny-meenie-miney-mo, do-what-makes-you-feel-good choice.

The gods have not put a big, blinking neon sign around The Truth. There is literally no way to know which of us has chosen true. The only thing any of us can do is choose the religion that feels truest to each of us.

How can I get it through your thick skull that thinking people can consider the same questions and yet come to different, and even opposing, conclusions?