Rational and Irrational Control
People who hear voices, sometimes experience rational control from the voices - meaning that the voices try to impose controlling reason, onto the voice hearer - telling the voice hearer what to think or do, or imposing questions. This can be caused or influenced, by the way that some psychiatrists, social workers, and mental health workers, have treated and related towards us. Sometimes the voice hearer will talk, or think, irrational and/or meaningless nonsense, to avoid the voices having this rational control, because as a coping-strategy, this often works, and is very effective. This is also why some psychiatric diagnosed people, sometimes mumble, talk, or shout out, irrational or meaningless nonsense.
Rational control, by others socially, can have the same affect, and also be a way of controlling or repressing the emotions, or more creative, artistic, scientific, or abstract thinking, and it is something that bad teachers and bad politicians try to do to us. There is also such a thing as irrational control, when madness or unreason dominates reason and logical free thinking, and rational and irrational control, can both be connected and related, or used separately or simultaneously against people socially. Rational and irrational control can both be used emotionally and intellectually against people too.
In social situations, where a person is being rationally controlled and/or oppressed, the person might respond or react in a nonsensical or irrational way, according to how much they feel, or are, inhibited. For example, amongst friends, they may respond to forms of rational control, in a nonsensical or irrational way, but amongst those with more power, such as parents or mental health professionals, the mad person may repress these responses. However, these feelings, thoughts, and responses, are stored in the memory, and can have a delayed effect, being released at times, when the person feels very bored, or vulnerable to stress. Both a repression of the emotions, and an inappropriate emotional demand, can create a mad, nonsensical, or irrational response.
First of all, I want to look into whether the emotions are experienced first, before rational or intellectual thinking, as a lot of modern alternative psychological theories, tend to simply state that this is the case. It is also a view more widely held by some women than men, maybe because some men and women experience, or are told that they experience things very differently. It's possible that neither the emotions, nor the rational mind or intellect, are experienced first, as what is experienced first, is fragmented, random, chaos. This is a bit too simple an explanation for me though, although I do believe there is some truth in it, but that the crux of the matter, is how raw experience is processed, which makes it primarily emotional or rational, or both.
I believe that experience comes first, before emotions and thought, as experience is a separate thing in itself, something encompassing the whole mind and being, and something spiritual and sensory. Experience comes first, then perceptions - the transforming or filtering of experience into emotions or thoughts - comes after.
I do not believe that most normal emotions and thoughts overwhelm people, as there are many subtle kinds of emotions and thoughts, and on the whole we can choose in what way, or to what degree, emotions and thoughts influence or affect us. The times where this is not the case, is if we are being threatened with violence, terrorised, and oppressed, abused or mistreated in some way, and then that choice becomes somewhat problematic or limited, especially if mutual hatred or anger is involved, as anger is a powerful emotion which can annihilate, limit, obscure, or distort feeling and especially thinking.
Irrational control, seeks to diminish all emotion and thought, to control people in a purely behaviourist way, by their instinctual reactions, and which is why I am opposed to pure behaviourism. In my opinion, pure behaviourism, is just another form of abuse, and it has no place in society or the modern mental health system.
Monday 22 June 2009
Thursday 18 June 2009
Intrusive Thoughts
Myself, two friends of mine, and some people I speak to over the Internet - either in a chat room, or on msn (one-to-one) messenger - all sometimes experience so-called intrusive thoughts, although some of us hear negative voices with it, and others just hear or sense (other) thoughts as intrusive, but not voices as such.
This begs the question of whether some social voices are experienced as intrusive, in the person’s social life, and what bearing this has upon internal intrusive thoughts in general. This could be due to a vulnerability to stress, and/or that the person has some intrusive, aggressive, or domineering people in their lives.
There is a tendency, for people of all political persuasions, to say that intrusive, negative, rude, and violent thoughts, are just our own conscious thoughts, which we are not being responsible for, but this view amongst especially the right-wing, but also amongst many cognitive therapists, and some psychiatric survivors, is outdated, and needs understanding from new perspectives and approaches.
One thing that makes me angry, and which I very much dislike about the Tories, is that they are one-sidedly obessesed with the view, that some people make excuses for their bad thoughts and behaviours. Firstly, this annoys me, because they say this, as if it is one group doing this in society, such as criminals, or voice hearers, when people in power and authority justify their bad behaviours in that way.
Secondly, it makes me angry, because the Tories are just ignorant, and do not appreciate, understand, nor realise, that everyone are somewhat influenced by their so social, environmental, and life-experiences. On the issue of responsibility and freewill, you can’t always be responsible and free, unless you understand how experiences have influenced you first.
This begs the question of whether some social voices are experienced as intrusive, in the person’s social life, and what bearing this has upon internal intrusive thoughts in general. This could be due to a vulnerability to stress, and/or that the person has some intrusive, aggressive, or domineering people in their lives.
There is a tendency, for people of all political persuasions, to say that intrusive, negative, rude, and violent thoughts, are just our own conscious thoughts, which we are not being responsible for, but this view amongst especially the right-wing, but also amongst many cognitive therapists, and some psychiatric survivors, is outdated, and needs understanding from new perspectives and approaches.
One thing that makes me angry, and which I very much dislike about the Tories, is that they are one-sidedly obessesed with the view, that some people make excuses for their bad thoughts and behaviours. Firstly, this annoys me, because they say this, as if it is one group doing this in society, such as criminals, or voice hearers, when people in power and authority justify their bad behaviours in that way.
Secondly, it makes me angry, because the Tories are just ignorant, and do not appreciate, understand, nor realise, that everyone are somewhat influenced by their so social, environmental, and life-experiences. On the issue of responsibility and freewill, you can’t always be responsible and free, unless you understand how experiences have influenced you first.
Emotions and Catharsis
A close friend of mine, asked me a few important questions about the emotions: Are emotions more to do with the past or the future? Are emotions more to do with the imagination or reality? Are emotions or thoughts experienced first?
The question as to whether the emotions, are more to do with the past or the present, are ideologically to do with whether a theory is a radical, or a more so-called modern mental health theory.
Radical theory tends to emphasise emotions, blocks, and catharsis or release, usually to do with releasing, the negative emotions of past traumatic events, such abuse, loss, or mistreatment. Whereas, so-called modern mental health theories of emotions, tend to focus on present negative emotions and treatment, and also focus on present, positive emotions, and self-control. So the answer to my friend’s first question, is often a case of "Who pays the piper, calls the tune".
The trouble with a lot of radical, or catharsis theories of emotions, is that they tend to be deterministic and mechanistic, fail to acknowledge that people release and cathart emotions when abusing or mistreating others, and they over-focus on releasing only negative emotions, and tend to state, that there is only one way of releasing negative emotions - either through sexuality, deep breathing techniques, primal screaming - or crying.
A person in the mental health chat room I frequent, gave the brilliant analogy of a battery, to which he said, that emotional well-being, all depends on how the positive emotions, connect to the negative ones, and that if you only focus on the negative ones - without a mutual connection between the positive and negative - then you get a dead battery.
The trouble with so-called modern mental health theory, is that they deny the reality, of past emotional pain and suffering, caused by traumatic events such as abuse, and force people to repress those things, in favour of dealing with simply present negative and positive emotions.
From personal experience, I have found times when I very much needed to release negative emotions, through crying, and which made me feel better afterwards, but I have also found, that I needed to focus on experiencing, and connecting, to positive emotions as well. These positive emotions then, were not simply released, but also stored, or had a good influence in my mind and/or memory, and connected to the negative emotions, in a way that enabled some kind of mutual reciprocity, and transformation. Both positive and negative emotions, can have a good influence, in increasing our sensitivity and awareness, of things like love, empathy, and compassion, and again, all depend upon how the negative connects to and is influenced by the positive, and vice versa.
I tend to think and believe, that the mind and emotions, think and feel in terms of association, or associative influences or links, and that present positive or negative emotions, can be influentially linked to past ones, and vice versa, although I realise that association theory is limited, and that associative feeling and thinking theory, historically paved the way for behaviourism in psychology, which I tend to dislike, because behaviourism objectifies and punishes people, with instinctual associative responses, and treats them like animals, without human potential for choices and change.
What I have discovered, about the emotions and thoughts, is that some things are linked by association, and some things aren’t - but that the links connect like road maps - in unusual and indirect ways, sometimes halted by blocks, and sometimes prolonged, distracted, or suspended by different winding paths and tunnels, where they link up, break off or divert in different directions, and then link up again.
This, and the battery analogy, is also how thoughts and emotions, are experienced first at different times, according to the situation and responses, and from individual to individual, and it is the more complex association theory I believe in, which is more truthful and accurate, from both experience and observation.
The question as to whether the emotions, are more to do with the past or the present, are ideologically to do with whether a theory is a radical, or a more so-called modern mental health theory.
Radical theory tends to emphasise emotions, blocks, and catharsis or release, usually to do with releasing, the negative emotions of past traumatic events, such abuse, loss, or mistreatment. Whereas, so-called modern mental health theories of emotions, tend to focus on present negative emotions and treatment, and also focus on present, positive emotions, and self-control. So the answer to my friend’s first question, is often a case of "Who pays the piper, calls the tune".
The trouble with a lot of radical, or catharsis theories of emotions, is that they tend to be deterministic and mechanistic, fail to acknowledge that people release and cathart emotions when abusing or mistreating others, and they over-focus on releasing only negative emotions, and tend to state, that there is only one way of releasing negative emotions - either through sexuality, deep breathing techniques, primal screaming - or crying.
A person in the mental health chat room I frequent, gave the brilliant analogy of a battery, to which he said, that emotional well-being, all depends on how the positive emotions, connect to the negative ones, and that if you only focus on the negative ones - without a mutual connection between the positive and negative - then you get a dead battery.
The trouble with so-called modern mental health theory, is that they deny the reality, of past emotional pain and suffering, caused by traumatic events such as abuse, and force people to repress those things, in favour of dealing with simply present negative and positive emotions.
From personal experience, I have found times when I very much needed to release negative emotions, through crying, and which made me feel better afterwards, but I have also found, that I needed to focus on experiencing, and connecting, to positive emotions as well. These positive emotions then, were not simply released, but also stored, or had a good influence in my mind and/or memory, and connected to the negative emotions, in a way that enabled some kind of mutual reciprocity, and transformation. Both positive and negative emotions, can have a good influence, in increasing our sensitivity and awareness, of things like love, empathy, and compassion, and again, all depend upon how the negative connects to and is influenced by the positive, and vice versa.
I tend to think and believe, that the mind and emotions, think and feel in terms of association, or associative influences or links, and that present positive or negative emotions, can be influentially linked to past ones, and vice versa, although I realise that association theory is limited, and that associative feeling and thinking theory, historically paved the way for behaviourism in psychology, which I tend to dislike, because behaviourism objectifies and punishes people, with instinctual associative responses, and treats them like animals, without human potential for choices and change.
What I have discovered, about the emotions and thoughts, is that some things are linked by association, and some things aren’t - but that the links connect like road maps - in unusual and indirect ways, sometimes halted by blocks, and sometimes prolonged, distracted, or suspended by different winding paths and tunnels, where they link up, break off or divert in different directions, and then link up again.
This, and the battery analogy, is also how thoughts and emotions, are experienced first at different times, according to the situation and responses, and from individual to individual, and it is the more complex association theory I believe in, which is more truthful and accurate, from both experience and observation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)