Topic: The root causes of mental illness - page 3. (Read 4656 times)

It came off as irrelevant because you asked about my method, and then instead of commenting about the method itself, you commented on the way the explanation was presented.  Furthermore, you commented on the way it was presented as if you were actually a client being given this information.  It's really not a fair critique of any sort.

I get what you're saying, but I acknowledged in the very same post that as a therapist I need to find what the person can identify with so as to make the information more easy to convey.  The posts on this thread are to a general audience, not just you, hence I used the word 'we' and used very general examples.

Now, if I go on to write a book or something (which I intend to do at some point in my career) then I agree, I will need to be especially choosy about the language I use.  But I'd still bet that the majority of us have had experiences similar to the examples I just used.

For the record, I've been counseled too.

Edit:  Here's a little more detail to explain why I think the critique wasn't relevant.  A client who is genuinely interested in learning my method will likely ask about it after we have developed some kind of personal rapport.  If this is the case, then I will have some basic idea about the way to approach them as an individual.  You seemed to be forming your critique from two differing perspectives.  If you're simply an individual on the Bitcoin forum asking about my method, that's one thing.  But then to also simultaneously take the perspective of a resilient, emotional client puts my explanation at a disadvantage because you can play both sides when convenient.  In other words, it seemed that when you asked about my method, you were asking from the perspective of a curious person reading this thread.  The response seemed to be from a client's perspective. 

I have been counciled before, I also have an undergrad in a related field and have done some of that work. I'm just trying to convey the lessons learned from my experiences to you. Sorry if it came off as irrelvant.

... are you my client now or something?  I think that response was a bit foolish.

If I was already pissed, the "we" thing would just piss me off more. " You don't know me or my problems!"... just sayin.

By the way, I truly want to thank everyone so far who has commented.  You have no idea how helpful your comments have been.

I have a general system, yes.  I utilize a set of what I believe are Universal principles and then try to tailor them to an individual's situation.

Assuming a person is in full control of their mental faculties (i.e. they are not delusional, hallucinating, mentally retarded, high on drugs or withdrawing from drugs to the point where they are significantly incapacitated, etc.), then my first goal is to simply develop a rapport with the person and try to understand what kind of information they are likely to absorb, and the best ways of helping them to absorb this information.

It is my belief that people naturally are drawn to that with which they can identify. This is why (generally) nerds hang with nerds, beautiful people hang with beautiful people, gym rats hang with gym rats, whites hang with whites, blacks with blacks, happy people with happy people, and 'mentally' ill' people with 'mentally ill' people.  Accordingly, this is why I have found analogies are useful.  I try to use analogies that people can relate to, and as such I find that people are more ready to absorb information presented in the form of an analogy rather than simply spilling them loads of dense information.

After I've developed a certain rapport with a client (the strength of this rapport is usually restrained by the client's length of stay), I then try to emphasize the importance of increasing self-awareness within the client, and try to help them understand why increasing self-awareness is the critical first step to recovery.  Virtually any and all genres of therapy including CBT, REBT, psychodynamic, existential, etc. are designed to increase a client's level of self-awareness.  Increasing self-awareness helps us to become more in tune with the subtleties of our thought patterns, behavior patterns, habits, and tendencies.  

The more we become aware of these patterns (i.e. by becoming more observant of them), we can begin to develop some increased insight into our situation.  We can begin to identify negative habits and tendencies more readily, and by becoming more observant of these habits and tendencies, we can begin to find ways to intervene in situations where we would ordinarily react without thinking.  Becoming more observant of these tendencies allows us a moment of stillness for insight and clarity, and it is during this moment of stillness that change is possible.  We become more distant and disconnected from our negative habits and tendencies the more we observe them, and when we are distant from them, we become more free to act differently.

To give an example, how many times have we become so completely angry or frustrated that we literally wanted to grab the nearest thing to us (e.g. a remote control, a phone) and chuck it across the room.  Sometimes, we actually do this!  Other times, we actually have the object in hand, and we even may make the arm motion to begin to throw it, but then something stops us in our tracks.  We might have the thought, "I can't throw this, I'll have to spend $250 replacing my new I-Phone!"  Somehow, we had a moment of clarity.  We were able to intervene.  We were able to, for a very, very brief moment, distance ourselves from our anger and have a moment of rational clarity.  Now, the question is, why were we able to intervene?

We were able to intervene because we briefly became more observant of our situation.  We took a look at the situation in a broader context.  No longer was it simply "Me and my anger"  but it became "Me, my anger, my phone, my money, my future need to replace my phone if I break it."  In other words, we distanced ourselves from the situation, even if only slightly.  Sure, we might just go back to being really frustrated, but we must not forget that moment of clarity.  The more observant we become, the more moments of clarity we will have like this.  How often do we change the channel when it reaches a commercial without even thinking about it?  Do you even know why you changed the channel, or has it become so instinctively natural for you to do so that you haven't even realized that there was anxiety present?  "Oh, this channel doesn't satisfy me anymore, I desire something else."

So, the first step is to drive home the importance of increasing self-awareness.  Increasing self-awareness is a skill that is developed through continued practice.  As we become more self-aware, and as we gain more clarity and insight, then we can begin to find ways to replace negative habits of thinking and acting with positive ones.  Increasing self-awareness which results in clarity and insight develops hope for recovery, and hope for a better future when we realize that positive change is possible.  From hope stems motivation, from motivation stems positive intention to do better and think better which will reap positive results.  This is the path to recovery.

TL;DR:    
Understanding the importance of increased self-awareness leads to...
Motivation and intention to increase self-awareness leads to...
Increased self-awareness leads to...
Increased clarity and insight leads to...
Hope leads to...
Motivation to do better and think better leads to...
Positive habit formation leads to...
Positive results and recovery

Do you have system though? Or is it all just kind of an artform? Some people only respond to threats/violence (and will say so) which is not an approved therapy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner

This is the type of person who I have had most contact with I guess. Perhaps your clients have different problems.

I don't understand what is vague about it. If you recommend dietary changes or whatever, how do you go about convincing someone to modify their behaviour to reap the benefits you think they will get?

Is the desire to eliminate desire negative if all desire is negative?

Your statements lead into those "self-resolving paradoxes" that I talked about.

When we look at our world in the 3rd dimension, we can describe what the 4th dimension might be like.  But, no matter how hard we try, it is impossible to intellectually understand the 4th dimension as it is the sum of all possible yes AND no operations in the 3rd dimension.

When I present an assertion such as "desire is a root cause of mental illness" which then leads to the inevitable conclusion that "all desire is negative," this naturally brings up questions such as "is the desire to eliminate desire negative if all desire is negative?" or the questions that you posited.

As I stated in an earlier post in this thread, due to the human intellect being confined to yes OR no operations only, we must pick a certain level of logical syntax and act as though it is the highest level of syntax.  From this syntax we can then resolve paradoxes that arise in lower levels of logical syntax.  The questions that you posited, and the question that I posited "i.e. is the desire to eliminate desire negative?", can be thrust into this lower level of syntax and resolved, even when we are actually talking about things that are only fit for a higher level of syntax (e.g. trying to understand the 4th dimension as if it were the 2nd dimension).

So, I would respond as follows:  On a certain level, yes, the desire to eliminate desire, the desire for happiness, the desire to eat, the desire to love, to obtain wisdom, etc.  is negative as it still implies dissatisfaction.  I don't know about you, but when I'm hungry, I get rather cranky.  When I long for knowledge or wisdom that I do not have, I feel inadequate.  Even when I desire to eliminate desire, I long for a certain state of contentment that I have only had glimpses of while in a state of deep meditation.

But, on a different level, desire can be good.  Desire and intention allow us to successfully navigate the world around us, to go out and obtain that food when we are hungry, to help the sick or poor in need, to learn, to develop skills, etc.  But remember, on a higher level of syntax, just as the 4th dimension relates to the 3rd dimension, desire is both good and bad simultaneously, and neither good nor bad simultaneously.  However, this type of statement simply cannot be comprehensively intellectualized.  

If you want a glimpse of how yes AND no operations operate, try to focus on your direct experience of phenomena.  Direct experiences in and of themselves prior to any intellectual abstraction are the unification of subject of object, and an experience of duality itself.  If you pay attention to the studies and works of quantum researchers, they are completely disinterested in any phenomena that cannot be observed.  Ever hear the old question, "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it (i.e. observe it), did it make a sound?"  Quantum researchers don't care whatsoever about this kind of question -- it is more or less a nonsense question that isn't even worth trying to formulate any kind of intelligent response.

Quantum researchers only care about what is observed, and with good reason.  It is through the direct experience of phenomena that a glimpse of yes AND no operations arises, and it is something that the intellectual mind cannot fully comprehend.  In an attempt to understand direct experience, the rational mind must parse the experience -- whereas a direct experience is akin to duality itself, the rational mind parses duality into halves (remember, the root word of "rationale" is "ratio").  It is only from a comparison of yes and no states that anything can be rationally comprehended.

Important Point:  Keeping this in mind, lets go back to the question, "Is the desire to eliminate desire negative (if all desire is negative)?"  Well, if desire eliminates something negative, then it seems to be the opposite of negative (after all, it is axiomatic that removing the cause of something negative removes that which is negative).  So, this means that the desire to eliminate desire must be non-negative at the same time that it is negative!

Note:  While I do hold a masters degree in social work mental health and a bacehlors degree in psychology, I am not a licensed professional and am not legally qualified to speak professionally on the diagnoses of mental illnesses.

That being said, the DSM-IV is the basis upon which all mental illnesses are diagnosed.  The DSM-IV itself is simply a book outlining categorical criteria that form the basis for mental illnesses.

Do I think that mental illnesses exist?  Well, that depends.   Now, if I were to say definitively that "yes, mental illnesses exist," then I would seem to be contradicting myself when I went into the whole "identity implies stability over time."  In other words, if someone was and is mentally ill, then this would imply that the mental illness would never, EVER go away, nor would that person have been free of mental illness at any time in the past.

So, why use the phrase 'mental illness' to begin with?  Well, why say 'AIDS' or 'cold' or 'flu'?  Isn't every AIDS case different in intensity, duration, etc.?  Don't some people recover from colds in 5 days while others recover in 7?

The phrase 'mental illness' is used to reflect a certain group of characteristics that seem to reflect certain patterns.  The term 'depression,' for example, is simply used to describe a certain number of categorical criteria in an individual.  Using such phrases have benefits -- for example, they make communication between professionals and academics easier.  In other words, they help you to form a general idea of what a given person is going through, what their characteristics might be, what you may be able to expect from them, etc.

My personal belief is that the phrase 'mental illness' is a term just as any other, but truly it is the 'experience' that we must try to understand.  When I say the word 'apple,'  what kind of apple did you think of?  Was it a red apple?  Why didn't you think of a green apple?  Should we hound anybody that uses the phrase 'apples and oranges' for not saying 'red apples and green apples?'

Long story short, any good mental health professional/paraprofessional/student should learn to understand experiences, and from that understanding we can learn ways to bring about more positive experiences.

It is from my emphasis on understanding experiences that my emphasis on identifying with an observer arises.  Observation is a fundamental, self-evident experience.  It aligns with Occam's Razor, and it is hard to get more fundamental than statements like "I observe" or "I am."

What I disagree with I highlighted. In your view, all desire is negative. Is self-preservation or hunger a lack of happiness? Is it necessary for us to give up all desire for us to be happy?
The positions in which we find ourselves are drawn to us through our desire; What we are has been built through desire. The 'is' was achieved through desire. Therefore, happiness or a lack of happiness is desire fulfilled already.

I love the term mental illness. It sells a lot of books. Personally, I don't believe it exists. What we perceive as depression, delusion, ADD (bullshit), schizophrenia (most diagnoses are inconclusive), etc. is nothing but our inability to cope with our own weaknesses in helping each other. Basing a worldview on several thousand year old year myths is as useful as empowering self-serving authorities to steal the freedoms of individuals for personal profit. If a person can be labeled as mentally ill, then groups of people should be labeled as socially ill. Where are those peer-reviewed journals? In fact, most of civilization is pretty fucking nuts. That's why we sometimes read, watch, and worship fiction that gives us a glimpse of how things maybe should be if we weren't so goddamn willfully ignorant to do anything about it.

A great question:

Here is my humble advice.

1)  First, try to identify more with yourself as being an 'observer' rather than a 'participant.'  If you think "I am thinking," try to shift it to the idea that "there is thinking."  If you think "I am sad," try to shift it to the idea that "there is sadness."

Thoughts are like boxes.  Whenever we have a thought or idea, its as if our mind jumps inside that thought-box and whatever that thought-box contains becomes our entire reality.  Now, if that thought-box is full of negative things and we jump inside of it, then all of those negative things can hurt us.

The trick is to learn how to float above and hover around those thought boxes.  If we can make the box be "over there," then our mind becomes free.  Thoughts are the constraints on the freedom of our mind.  By learning to identify ourselves as observers, we can place some distance between ourselves and the boxes.

Now, you might be thinking, "Well, what about good thoughts?  Why not jump inside those boxes?"  Well, why need to?  Have you ever just looked up at the clouds and enjoyed the view, or watched the sunset?  It's not like you need to be right next to the clouds or the sun to enjoy them, you can enjoy them from afar.  Besides, if there's many good thought boxes, why jump inside only one of them?  Why not simply enjoy all of them from a distance?

2.)  When you learn to identify with yourself as being an observer rather than a participant, then naturally your desires will decrease in frequency and intensity.  You will learn to be more content and satisfied with what you observe. 

Keep in mind, observation is related to stillness.  Any good photographer knows that in order to get the most clarity in a photograph, he needs to be calm and still.  Observation itself is the method of stillness and calmness.  When we become better observers, we naturally become more calm and more still, and less anxious and stressed. 

I agree with you completely, so I'm actually not sure why you disagreed with what I said.


I acknowledged this in my original post when I stated that root cause #2 is an offshoot of root cause #1.  Perhaps it is the phrase "root cause" that tripped you up, and to this extent I agree that it is a misnomer.  In fact, I would say that root causes #1 and #2 are both offshoots of root cause #3, in which case both are misnomers.  And, I also could point to ways in which root cause #3 is an off shoot of some other primary cause.

When I began typing this post, I faced an immediate conundrum:  How do I convey what I want to say in a way that speaks to a wide variety of people, but also in a way that won't leave some logical/philosophical purist in the dust.  This is why I completey left out any discussion of a comprehensive model which would necessarily entail self-resolving logical paradoxes explained by relative levels of syntax (where higher level logical syntaxes can help resolve paradoxes in lower level logical syntaxes).  I didn't want things to get so utterly confusing to the point where the intended message would be lost to 99.9% of the population.  I am posting this more for practical reasons.


My reply to this is mostly conveyed above.  Again, it's hard to present a comprehensive model for such assertions without getting into a "tower of turtles" which requires a very lengthy philosophical argument to even attempt to explain and resolve.  I am trying to present the information in a way which I recognize is ultimately fallible in its logic but will still provide a basis by which people can benefit.  And, by benefit, I mean to benefit in ways that I think are both atypical with respect to typical psychological therapeutic models, and are also not so overwhelmingly complex that it would take months if not years of contemplation to understand.

Don't forget, virtually any 'sound' conclusion is true on one syntax level, but is invalid on a higher syntax level.

Edit:  A good analogy for the "tower of turtles" would be the physical dimensions.  Let's say that I assert "That bird is over there."  Well, in the 3rd-dimension, that statement can be true.  In the 4th dimension, that statement is both true and false because the 4th dimension represents the sum of all possible configurations of the 3rd dimension.  So, in the 4th dimension, that 'bird' is both 'over there' and 'not over there,' and the 'bird' is also a 'non-bird.'  

But, then any statement made about the 4th dimension yields the same problem, and you need to go to a higher syntax (the 5th dimension) to shed light on the issue.  And so on, and so on.

Logic itself works the same way.  "A barber has a sign in front of his shop that states 'I will shave all those, and those who do not shave themselves.'"   This is a paradox.  If the barber doesn't shave himself, then he shaves himself.  Most people would just say "this is plain stupid," but we must remember that the assertion has already been made, and if we simply shift to a higher level of syntax, then these paradoxes become self-resolving.

The problem with human intellect is that it only works according to yes OR no operations, and not yes AND no operations.  Every (not-every) word (not-word) in (not-in) this (not-this) sentence (not-sentence) is (not-is) only (not-only) understood (not-understood) through (not-through) yes (not-yes) or (not-or) no (not-no) operations (not-operations).

As a result, we must pick one syntax level and use it as the highest level of syntactic operation, and then try to explain everything else as a lower level of syntactic operations.  If we were able to intellectually perform yes AND no operations simultaneously, then this wouldn't be so fucking confusing

I'm not sure I understand what your point is with respect to your first sentence.  Pain is pain, and it is simply an experience as any other.  As I have stated, I contend pain is not equivalent to suffering.  The distinction I am making here is that pain (for lack of a better term) is experienced prior to any interpretation of it, even the interpretation of calling it pain.  But, for the sake of this discussion, I have to call it something to convey the message.  The 'suffering' that can result after the experience has been interpreted as pain is the product of the drama that unfolds in the mind through negative thoughts about the future as a result of some past experience (e.g. "I hurt my arm in the past, and now my future will be worse because of x, y, and z."  But, as I do not understand what your point was, this was probably an off-topic response.

Also, as I stated in a previous post, blaming "desire" as an isolated phenomenon is not accurate.  Desire is intended, and the intent to follow (attach) or let go of (detach) from desire is also a choice.  The choice of whether to attach to, or detach from, a given desire is what makes desire itself intended.  In other words, the desires that we have now are the product of attaching ourselves to (or following) similar desires in the past.  Desire is habitual in nature.

It is difficult to provide a specific answer to a vague question.

To anyone in this thread:
So, based on your theory, what do we do about it then?

I will disagree based on your reasons.

Desire originates in the will. It is activated, in the realms in which it is directed, by that which is the motivating force, through the will and the mental abilities of the individual. Desire is the power which drives our physical, our spiritul self, while will is the directing force. It is the intent of mind that strengthens desire.

This is a symptom not a cause.

This is a logic problem. Invalid logic is still logic.

I would think mental illness, except for those with a disease causation, schizophrenia, or those with a spiritual causation, obsession and possession, are mental patterns that are stuck or fixed in position. I believe also, that nutrient deficiencies can lead to or exaserbate mental illness.

For those with a nutrient deficiency where mental illness manifests, combinations of specific vitamin/mineral supplementation has been shown to be effective at creating a remission of the mental illness.

For those absent of a nutrient deficiency, their is an abnormal mental pattern of functioning, much like an 'addictive personality'. This probably could be seen via a brain wave graph. To place mental illness into remission in this instance requires, meditation, biofeedback, or some form of guided image therapy that will reset the abnormal pattern. This process can take 6 months to 2 years.

Drugs and alcohol modify these mental patterns also, but combined with addiction require multi steps to achieve the mental illness remission.

True schizophrenia, not a misdiagnosed case of possession or obsession, is a degeneritive disease which progresses over many years. It destroys nerve sheaths and a gold deficiency prevents their regeneration, also, excess spinal fluid entering the brain destroys brain cells. 90%+ of all true schizophrenia can traced back to a traumatic birth.

Obsession and possession can be resolved with prayer and exorcism actions. These are non-invasive methods, though those suffering may erroneously complain of death, pain or some form of anguish, and when employed by competent specialists can achieve 100% remission of the mental illness in a short period of time.