Kevin's Watch

aliantha wrote:

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?

Well said.

rusmeister wrote:

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?"

I'm not going down this path with you, Rus...not here. This thread is best when people are sharing their personal experiences with depression in an environment of mutual support, without fear of judgement or criticism. We may have discussions on definitions and issues around depression, such as the exchange before I got here about medication. I do not see it as a place to debate you on philosophy or epistemology, absolute truth, or any of your other handles.

If these are the things you want to discuss with me, I suggest you start a thread on relativism vs absolutism, subjectivism vs objectivism, or Orthodoxy vs the World at Large. I'll readily meet and debate with you there.

Feel free to post about your own experiences with depression, and how you struggle with and overcome it. I'd be very interested to hear about that. But if you continue to post about how very wrong myself or anyone else is in our attitudes toward depression, I will simply ignore you.

I have struggled with depression most of my life. My mother struggled (and lost) as did my grandmother before her. From my very youngest memories it was an issue with me. I often wonder if it was environmental or it was genetic. Bottom line is that it doesn't matter why it happened, it just did.

At this point in my life I have learned to manage the 'slides'. I found that medication did not work for me and I stopped using it. Many of my most creative times were also my darkest times. But I also know that my long battles with mental illness has forced me into a self imposed isolation. I never wanted anyone to know about my struggles so I have always kept people in my life at an arms distance. I guess the advantage of this cyberworld is a degree of anonymity that allows me to be more open about the subject. But depression is a lonely disease/disorder or whatever you want to call it. I do not feel exceptional in my depression, I feel ordinary and mundane, not worth redemption. So my daily struggle is finding that exceptional part of me worth saving.

aliantha wrote:

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?

Here we are, back to the denigration of people.

I was wondering if it is a specifically Christian thing; this ability to distinguish between the idea and the person who holds it. I am re-reading "Orthodoxy" by GKC (NOT related to my Church) and he suggests as much:

Take another case: the complicated question of charity, which some highly uncharitable idealists seem to think quite easy. Charity is a paradox, like modesty and courage. Stated baldly, charity certainly means one of two things -- pardoning unpardonable acts, or loving unlovable people. But if we ask ourselves (as we did in the case of pride) what a sensible pagan would feel about such a subject, we shall probably be beginning at the bottom of it. A sensible pagan would say that there were some people one could forgive, and some one couldn't: a slave who stole wine could be laughed at; a slave who betrayed his benefactor could be killed, and cursed even after he was killed. In so far as the act was pardonable, the man was pardonable. That again is rational, and even refreshing; but it is a dilution. It leaves no place for a pure horror of injustice, such as that which is a great beauty in the innocent. And it leaves no place for a mere tenderness for men as men, such as is the whole fascination of the charitable. Christianity came in here as before. It came in startlingly with a sword, and clove one thing from another. It divided the crime from the criminal. The criminal we must forgive unto seventy times seven. The crime we must not forgive at all. It was not enough that slaves who stole wine inspired partly anger and partly kindness. We must be much more angry with theft than before, and yet much kinder to thieves than before. There was room for wrath and love to run wild. And the more I considered Christianity, the more I found that while it had established a rule and order, the chief aim of that order was to give room for good things to run wild.

At any rate, I see a very clear distinction, that does not involve the denigration of people AT ALL, while certainly denigrating ideas they pick up and hold. Respecting the people as human beings, the dignity of the image of God does NOT require a respect of any nonsense one of those images may happen to spout. But you don't see it. Consistently. For years. So I'm wondering if there is any connection between abandoning the Christian idea of 'hating the sin (or idea gone wrong) and loving the sinner (or person who holds the bad idea)' and an inability to distinguish between denigration of people and denigration of bad ideas.

I understand that people can come to opposing conclusions. I do not need to be convinced of it. What I haven't not seemed to be able to get through to you is that there is a genuine Truth about the meaning of our lives, and that although most people certainly manage to find SOME truth, most are certainly wrong (I say that ALL individuals on their own must go wrong sooner or later) in having that overall complete and correct grasp. The differences and disagreements DO matter. The errors ARE fatal. And yet it is NOT impossible to arrive at the actual Truth which is not just 'my opinion'.

Depression can lead to despair. Despair can lead to suicide. This is fundamentally a spiritual issue, on which most people really ARE wrong about the ultimate causes, and it is no denigration of their persons to say so.

Rus -- Cambo has very reasonably asked that participants in this thread stick to the subject -- which is clinical depression -- and not veer off into discussions of other things. And I'm tired of every thread in the Close turning into a debate over Orthodoxy. So I will not respond to your post.

And to everybody else, I apologize for giving rus an opening that allowed him to insert his usual spiel.

Cambo wrote:

rusmeister wrote:

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?"

I'm not going down this path with you, Rus...not here. This thread is best when people are sharing their personal experiences with depression in an environment of mutual support, without fear of judgement or criticism. We may have discussions on definitions and issues around depression, such as the exchange before I got here about medication. I do not see it as a place to debate you on philosophy or epistemology, absolute truth, or any of your other handles.

If these are the things you want to discuss with me, I suggest you start a thread on relativism vs absolutism, subjectivism vs objectivism, or Orthodoxy vs the World at Large. I'll readily meet and debate with you there.

Feel free to post about your own experiences with depression, and how you struggle with and overcome it. I'd be very interested to hear about that. But if you continue to post about how very wrong myself or anyone else is in our attitudes toward depression, I will simply ignore you.

Fine, Cambo.
But that's the division between us. I think there are actual and real causes for depression in general, one not unique to me, you or anyone. That's why I ask what's true. This thread is in the Close, where that is the central question. You'll note that I don't spend much time in other subforums here because that is the main issue of interest in my life.

Hoping to be better understood, even while being rejected...

Orthodox prayer is a wonderful thing for dealing with depression, something that frequently hits me in this often grey, dark and cold part of the world that is not my homeland. The main thing about feelings is that they come and go, most importantly, regarding depression, that they DO go (even when they are frequent fliers). The prayers, first composed along the lines of the Lord's Prayer (Our Father) help us put what SHOULD be first in our lives, not what 'seems' to us (since our perception is often very poor), but based on what actually IS the case.

Our Father who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory, now and
for ever and unto the ages of ages, Amen.

If I were to try to give a 30-second version for dummies (of whom I am first) on that prayer, I would say that it starts by putting first things first.
God, and worship of God, and a desire for His Kingdom. (Note: "Kingdom", not "Republic", "Empire", etc)

The daily bread reference is both eucharistic and refers to daily needs (note: NEEDS, not "desires". Anyone have children telling them they NEED a cookie?

And forgiveness of others. If we can't forgive others who have screwed us, we can't hope to be forgiven ourselves. I see the violence in the Middle East as a case in point, as it is so based on a lack of forgiveness. (Not that I'm a pacifist - the Christian view is dual, as I tried to explain to Ali above)

And to not be distracted by the things of this life (temptation) from what's REALLY important.

And to acknowledge who the Lord and Master of our life really is, and put it into the perspective not only of the present, but of eternity.

It'll tend to make the things that depress us smaller, if it is 'grokked'. That was a model, given by Christ, on which prayers from prayer books are modeled. There are many others, but that is the model par excellence.

Or, as Tolkien put it in "The Hobbit":

Gandalf wrote:You are a very fine person, and I am very fond of you, but you are only quite a small fellow in a wide world, after all.

aliantha wrote:Rus -- Cambo has very reasonably asked that participants in this thread stick to the subject -- which is clinical depression -- and not veer off into discussions of other things. And I'm tired of every thread in the Close turning into a debate over Orthodoxy. So I will not respond to your post.

And to everybody else, I apologize for giving rus an opening that allowed him to insert his usual spiel.

Hi Ali, and thank you!

I think that I AM dealing with clinical depression.

What I suggest is that the posters who really can't stand to read anything I say, just ignore me. Shun me.

But if anyone sees any grains of truth - even if only grains - consider them. Nowadays the truth itself is counter-cultural.

Can Orthodox prayer deal with clinical depression? I certainly think so. If someone is suffering from it and their methods aren't working, it certainly can't hurt to try (although the effort would have to be sustained and sincere).

aliantha wrote:Rus -- Cambo has very reasonably asked that participants in this thread stick to the subject -- which is clinical depression -- and not veer off into discussions of other things. And I'm tired of every thread in the Close turning into a debate over Orthodoxy. So I will not respond to your post.

And to everybody else, I apologize for giving rus an opening that allowed him to insert his usual spiel.

I don't think you need to apologize. While he denies it, Rus is the very epitome of the arrogant thread hijacker who thinks every subject is about him and his ideas. His very presence here is an "opening" to insert his daily drivel. He didn't need you to open it for him.

As far as people ignoring him as he suggested, I do that now. It's just difficult to do when he's sidetracking everything.

Is there an option on the site to hide certain people's posts, by chance?

Nope. The Watch has no ignore function. Personally, I prefer it that way, otherwise you get nonsensical threads when you can only see other peoples replies to the person you're ignoring.

Personally, I always skim and skip through Rus' posts when they have nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's not hard.

Cambo wrote:

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.

How do you define it if it's not physiological? What makes something unhealthy? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just questioning the technicalities.

Is something that happens / exists only in your thoughts the same as something that has a physical characteristic?

--A

The technicalities are tricky. I wouldn't say something that only occurs in the mind is the same as something with a physical nature. But my loose ideas of health in both areas are pretty similar.

How would you define physical health? I would guess it would be to do with the body functioning as it's supposed to. "As it's supposed to" could get tricky as well; there's a lot of potential grey area. But we're pretty good at recognising physical malfunction when it crops up. Vomiting, excessive coughing, leaking of fluids from places they usually don't leak...these are pretty sure signs of poor physical health.

The mind has a lot more grey area than the body, of course. We really know very little about it, compared to our knowledge of the physical world. But if we take an extreme example like suicidal tendencies, that's pretty much the definition of unhealthy from the organism's point of view. If we can agree that suicidal thoughts are bad for people, and that they can be directly caused by occurences existing wholly in the mind, that to me proves that mental conditions can count as illnesses. From that point, it's really just a case of us finding out more about the mind.

I wish Lore would show up and help flesh out my inexpert theories...

I know a woman who said she wrote a list of things that made her life very good.
-Married
-Have kids
-Own a very nice home
-etc

She had to read it to herself every day. She was always so sad, and couldn't understand why. Nothing was so wrong, particularly not on a daily basis, that she shouldn't be happy. So she read her list to remind herself of it.

But it didn't work. It seemed that circumstances did not cause or help her problem.

I know another woman who was very upset about being an only child. She was upset about it almost daily, usually to the point of tears. This was when I knew her in her 20s and 30s.

lorin wrote:At this point in my life I have learned to manage the 'slides'. I found that medication did not work for me and I stopped using it. Many of my most creative times were also my darkest times. But I also know that my long battles with mental illness has forced me into a self imposed isolation. I never wanted anyone to know about my struggles so I have always kept people in my life at an arms distance. I guess the advantage of this cyberworld is a degree of anonymity that allows me to be more open about the subject. But depression is a lonely disease/disorder or whatever you want to call it.

YES. Phone conversations, I'e found, are also another "middle ground" - a way of hiding some of the pieces of myself, selectively making others visible.

I do not feel exceptional in my depression, I feel ordinary and mundane, not worth redemption. So my daily struggle is finding that exceptional part of me worth saving.

And yet you probably see MANY "ordinary and mundane" humans at the shelter you work at as worthy of redemption - at great cost to others, if they will only be willing to receive and contribute that which of necessity must come from them (that is, their choices).

Or perhaps it is not quite that way; maybe I am guessing, inferring, and putting words in your mouth. (in which case, please set me straight!)

I know another woman who was very upset about being an only child. She was upset about it almost daily, usually to the point of tears. This was when I knew her in her 20s and 30s.

So sad, Fist... to grieve for so long for something so beyond her control. =/ *sigh* (or perhaps it was not really "grieving")

rus- I'm gonna write something about your last bit on one of the "more about Orthodoxy" threads.

Avatar wrote:Nope. The Watch has no ignore function. Personally, I prefer it that way, otherwise you get nonsensical threads when you can only see other peoples replies to the person you're ignoring.

Personally, I always skim and skip through Rus' posts when they have nothing to do with the topic at hand. It's not hard.

This is what I was advocating for the people who can't stand my ideas on topics, so I don't mind such a response so much. It's sad when people won't engage your ideas, but it's better than needless acrimony.

But I do of course maintain that my posts generally have to do with the given topic - at the very least with whatever I respond to. Concepts ARE related, and a holistic view of life is ever so much more sensible than a piecemeal one. From my POV, "religion" (as you call it) is not a "part" of one's life; it is the thing that determines everything else - so my comments DO have to do with depression. Many of you simply reject the explanation of the causes.

I'm not going to respond to the "arrogance" charge anymore, except maybe to say "Jor-El".

On topic, I claim to have a response to depression. If other people's ideas "work" for them, then obviously they are not going to be interested, so I only address those who are looking for ideas. And if no one's looking for ideas, why the heck are we posting at all?

I have another thought for those who do not dismiss my thought as drivel or spiels but are more fair-minded:

I was thinking about how serious depression (a lowering of the spirits) can lead to despair (a surrendering attitude of will). The opposite of despair is hope. And it occurs to me that people today mostly think of the word as meaning "hopeful" (experiencing a feeling of hope) rather than as a positive virtue, a mental attitude of will that sets itself against despair.

This has implications for depression. Most particularly that an attitude of the will can be set against it. I think that a predominant attitude of our time is that our feelings are king - that we are ruled by our feelings. For nearly two millenia, faith, hope and charity were recognized as positive virtues to be practiced in spite of feelings by everybody. Now the first two are seen to be mere 'feelings' (and the first to be an unreasonable one at that) and the last to be something done by people with spare time and money.

I think that reverting to the traditional views and understandings would really help most people in dealing with depression - although I would grant a SMALL number of cases of genuine illness beyond the general spiritual one caused by the thing I call 'sin'. I don't think it is drivel or unreason to think so, and that it is a perfectly sensible path to explore.

I see something in this thread that reminds me of something I have worked on all my life. As someone who deals with depression daily, when it worsens I have a tendency to intellectualize my feelings. I turn them into a third party issue, thereby distancing myself from the real issues and the real feelings.

I lose me in the discussion. It turns into an intellectual pursuit. It is a wonderful defense mechanism that keeps people interested yet another way to keep people at arms length.

Avatar wrote:

Cambo wrote:

rusmeister wrote: 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?

I think the key is the cause of the bad feeling in question. Sometimes, someone is sad because certain events quite naturally make people sad. You lose your job; you go through the scant savings you had in a couple months; you max out your credit cards; the bank forcloses on your house, so your family is homeless; your car is repossessed. Anybody surprised that the person, who had generally been of very good cheer, is sad? Depressed? Finds it difficult to go out looking for a new job? Doesn't believe things can be changed around?

But if things do change around, and the family is safe again, the same person is fine again. No medication or therapy needed.

OTOH, there's the person who did not lose his job. His family is well fed, warm, dry, safe. And he can't get out of bed because he's so sad all the time. And he might try to kill himself. Even he can't explain or understand why. And nothing he gets or achieves makes him feel other than he does.

Or bad things happen to a usually cheerful person and he/she goes into a tailspin -- but even after things turn around and life is good again, the person can't shake the feelings of sadness and worthlessness.

Too, there's an illness called postpartum depression. Not only do women's bodies undergo a profound change after the birth of a baby, but they're coping with the changes *and* a newborn on an interrupted sleep cycle. A lot of women experience crazy emotions at that time. But if the craziness continues for a lengthy period, then it's cause for concern.

lorin wrote:I see something in this thread that reminds me of something I have worked on all my life. As someone who deals with depression daily, when it worsens I have a tendency to intellectualize my feelings. I turn them into a third party issue, thereby distancing myself from the real issues and the real feelings.

I lose me in the discussion. It turns into an intellectual pursuit. It is a wonderful defense mechanism that keeps people interested yet another way to keep people at arms length.

Well, I'm pretty sure that in this you are NOT extraordinary, lorin. We all do some flavor of this kind of thing. (I'm curious as to which things people said reminded you of that! But you don't have to say if you don't want to...)

My counselor pointed out that the mental defenses I built up WERE appropriate at the time they were built... and they protected my soul.

Also, the more intelligent and/or creative the mind, (and/or the more the soul needed shielded) the more amazing (and often "amazingly inconvenient" later on!) defenses get built up.

Peace, lorin. You don't HAVE to say more than you feel like you can now. Maybe you can try to give yourself permission to keep people at arms'-length for a time... (knowing that it's next to impossible NOT to do that... just because of the internal limitations you have right now)

Hmmmmmm... I was just thinking... intellectualizing and analyzing ones own feelings isn't ALL wasted.
Sure, it's usually not what we happen NEED right *then*, if we're depressed - but sometimes it can have payoffs later, right?

-tries to put a cheerful face on things-

Anyone wanna hear either:

• * my theory of why "fake it till you make it" appears to work as often as it does? -OR-
  * my theory of how "shame becomes a long-term obstacle to learning/growing/changing, even if it seems to produce good short-term results"

(these are things I've thought about a lot)

Linna Heartlistener wrote:Anyone wanna hear either:
* my theory of why "fake it till you make it" appears to work as often as it does?

Say, Linna, why do you think "fake it till you make it" appears to work as often as it does?



But I have no idea how often it appears to work, and I've never tried it.

Linna Heartlistener wrote:-OR-
* my theory of how "shame becomes a long-term obstacle to learning/growing/changing, even if it seems to produce good short-term results"

I wouldn't have thought shame produces good short-term results. And never heard anyone suggest that it does, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are circumstances under which it does.

Long-term obstacle to learning/growing/changing? Yeah, I have no problem believing that.