![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 21 to 45 of 50. Go back in thread:
Posted by Toph on August 23, 2005, at 7:36:48
In reply to Re: The Cartesian Model of Delusion » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on August 22, 2005, at 17:41:25
> > I hope that this is a delusion, Cartesian or otherwise.
>
> nah. thats why i left pc. 'cause my posts kept being deleted. these kinds of posts. not supportive... or something.
>I thought this was poetry. ; )
Hey, Alex, the Sass you refer to elsewhere, is he the guy who is anti-psyhotherapy or anti-medication or anti-something?
We love you alex, and I'm sure the bloomin' (hehe) admin does too.
Posted by Toph on August 23, 2005, at 9:35:53
In reply to DELETED?!! » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on August 23, 2005, at 7:36:48
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 17:25:27
Sass, Louis Arnorsson (2004) 'Some Reflections on the (Analytic) Philosophical Approach to Delusion' Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 11, 1 Special Issue: Delusions
Can't seem to find a homepage for him. Here is a link to the article (but my access to Muse is via uni subscription)http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/philosophy_psychiatry_and_psychology/v011/11.1sass.pdf
Hes also written a book (or two... which I haven't read...)
I'll be careful to get the links...
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 17:33:12
In reply to ^^ Oops, Thos Szasz ^^, posted by Toph on August 23, 2005, at 9:35:53
I thought I was replying to this thread but my reply ended up in a thread of its own:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20050807/msgs/545765.html
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 17:33:59
In reply to Sass, posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 17:25:27
Sorry... Above a reply to:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20050807/msgs/545592.html
Posted by Damos on August 23, 2005, at 17:39:56
In reply to Re: The Problem of Action, posted by alexandra_k on August 22, 2005, at 19:34:22
Finally read this whole thread through on the way home last night. Was so into it I missed my station on the train and had to let the first bus that came go so I could finish before I got home.
Was this the seminar you delivered a few weeks back? Some of the terminology and stuff had me boggled a bit but I managed to work it out kinda.
I found myself thinking 'oh boy, is she goiing where I think she's going?' and then when I got to Reports of Experience people on the train were looking at me oddly and I realised that the 'YES' I thought I'd only thought had in fact been rather loud - oops :-) From that point on I was just egging you on to go where you were headed. And you did, and you're right, so very right. If you attack me and try to prove me wrong, what's the first thing I'm gonna do? Defend. So what do you get? A war of attrition. The therapist finally says you're not trying - kapow, termination. Or the patient finally gives up and says 'you're not even trying to understand, before you tell me I'm wrong can't you at least try.', so they leave and maybe never go back. It's a lose-lose. If you don't even attempt empathetic understanding how can you ever hope to see how this person sees the world and themself in it. How can you ever hope to see how their view can be true for them. It has to be inside-out. You have to be inside their world to be able to take them by the hand and walk them out.
I really enjoyed this thread so much, Thanks Alex
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 18:11:31
In reply to Finally got to read it all - YAY » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on August 23, 2005, at 17:39:56
:-)
Sass says (paraphrasing here...)
in my opinion philosophers would be better off trying to imagine their way into the patients shoes making every effort to think feel and be like the patient...
And he quotes someone or other talking about Elvin Semrad (who I've never heard of...) paraphrasing again....
the great psychoanalyst elvin semrad could make any psychotic patient sane. by radical empathy making every attempt to think feel and be like the patient he succeeded in entering into their delusional world. he was able to draw them back out.
and what i want to say is... lets grant that thats what he did. lets just grant him that... if that is so then what is the process by which that happened? what does it mean to 'enter into the patients delusional world' - and how does one do that? And how... How on earth are you supposed to go about drawing them back out.
I was working this stuff out while me and Gabbi and Dinah were fighting over the small boards stuff over on admin.
(not to suggest that any of us were delusional lol!)I don't talk about 'treatment implication' stuff very often.. Actually that was the first time I've been so bold. I kind of feel like I don't know what I'm talking about... I'm not a clinician... What the hell do I know...
But then Ive spent a lot of time in hospital / supported accomodation talking and listening... and people talk to me about why they do not talk to their clinicians...
I was thinking of writing another peace on just that latter bit.
:-)
Yeah. Thats the seminar I gave couple weeks ago.
Thanks for taking the time :-)
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 18:30:24
In reply to Finally got to read it all - YAY » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on August 23, 2005, at 17:39:56
>If you don't even attempt empathetic understanding how can you ever hope to see how this person sees the world and themself in it. How can you ever hope to see how their view can be true for them. It has to be inside-out. You have to be inside their world to be able to take them by the hand and walk them out.
Or... You can give them their anti-psychotics and just wait for them to come right... Therapy is more expensive than anti-psychotics... Also... Maybe people are a little afraid... Afraid that they will enter in and get lost themselves. Maybe... Some people lack the ability to empathise with different kinds of anomalous experience. People vary with respect to how they find Sass' 'expression of emotional death' line. Some people (philosophers) don't really seem to be able to get their heads / emotions around that one. They can typically be persuaded via a line that goes 'sometimes we talk *boút the living dead and life beyond death and these notions seem to make sense... But they can't seem to think their way into emotional numbness. Bizzare...I guess another point that I forgot to make:
what do the anti-psychotics do / why do they help?
I want an intentional level explanation not a neurological level explanation.
So... On how delusions are produced.
One could try and say that a neurophysiological anomaly produces a delusion DIRECTLY.
That is just to say that delusions are primary and can't be explained any more from the intentional level (so you would have to talk about varieties of brain damage).
Most people don't like this. They find it deeply implausible that brain damage could lead to... Well... Thought insertion in effect :-)
They consider it much more plausible that:brain damage
then anomalous experience
then cognitive deficit
then delusional belief.so... what do the anti-psychotics do then?
Davies said that his line required the anti-psychotics to remidy the cognitive deficit. He looked a bit tentative when he said that so he may want to change his mind in hindsight...
But to me that sounds implausible.
I want to say that the main problem is the intensity, nature, recurrance, of certain kinds of anomalous expeirnece. what the anti-psychotics do is mute the experience. so it is not as anomalous anymore. so attentional resources are freed up back to the contemplation of reality as well as ones experiences.
and so in the circumscribed delusions arising from head trauma we have a very specific or particular kind of anomalous experience. it is 'telling them' (if you like) something particular.
whereas in the case of schizophrenia where people seem to have retreated into their own solipsistic world... thats because their experiences are much more pervasive...
but meds alter experience.
thats what i reckon.
Posted by Damos on August 23, 2005, at 18:44:48
In reply to Re: Finally got to read it all - YAY » Damos, posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 18:11:31
> I don't talk about 'treatment implication' stuff very often.. Actually that was the first time I've been so bold. I kind of feel like I don't know what I'm talking about... I'm not a clinician... What the hell do I know...
>
> But then Ive spent a lot of time in hospital / supported accomodation talking and listening... and people talk to me about why they do not talk to their clinicians...
>
> I was thinking of writing another peace on just that latter bit.
>
> :-)
>
> Yeah. Thats the seminar I gave couple weeks ago.
>
> Thanks for taking the time :-)It was pleasure. I was excited by it and can't believe they were ho-hum when you delivered it. You really should and must write more about it. Because you have insight, you have the thinking experience and the real experience. Trust your truth, your instincts. Reminds me of that line from A Few Good Men; "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth." And maybe they (the clinicians) can't. But if no-one ever tells them and shows them from inside their world in words they understand, how will we know. If know one opens the window how does fresh air ever get in.
Thank you for being brave.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 19:48:00
In reply to Re: Finally got to read it all - YAY » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on August 23, 2005, at 18:44:48
> can't believe they were ho-hum when you delivered it.
oh. its because nobody here is working on / interested in / knows anything about the topic. so they just follow me along going yup... yup... yup. and don't have a lot to say with respect to critique. it's not supposed to be like that. they're supposed to critique it as hard as they can so i'm forced to improve it and tighten it up and elaborate on the bits that aren't so clear etc. i guess it means i told an okay story, but it doesn't help me at all really...
and they are philosophers at any rate. so it was written with them in mind. thats why i don't explain the technical philosophical terminology but i do explain the psychology / brain stuff. there can be a danger in using technical terms across more than one field... a danger that you will make yourself incomprehensible to everyone and alienate yourself from both fields.
i have to go with what i know...
that means cognitive neuropsychology and intentional explanation.
and with respect to therapy...
that means CBT.
but thats okay... thats okay...
i reckon...
that if you modify linehan slightly...
(take her stuff on finding the inherant grain of wisdom in the clients utterance take her stuff on validation)
then you could get a version of DBT for delusional subjects.
you could even modify skills training...
with respect to social skills (though interpersonal skills are on the agenda already):-)
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 19:58:18
In reply to DELETED?!! » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on August 23, 2005, at 7:36:48
> I thought this was poetry. ; )
yeah. i wonder how supportive poetry is supposed to be... i posted to the creative corner... my philosophical ramblings / ravings were okay but as soon as i started talking about delusions / DID things got removed 'bout as fast as i put them up.
not supportive apparantly.
i think...
some people react before they bother to try and understand.
but im disgruntled...
sorry sorry...but unsupportive and an accusation of plagarism.
charming.
Posted by Damos on August 23, 2005, at 20:40:51
In reply to Re: Finally got to read it all - YAY » Damos, posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 18:11:31
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9385029&dopt=Abstract
http://corppub.iuniverse.com/marketplace/backinprint/0595304117.html
http://www.moshersoteria.com/soteri.htm
He seems to have been rather influential and important.
Posted by Toph on August 23, 2005, at 20:57:36
In reply to Re: DELETED?!!, posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 19:58:18
What could be more unsupportive than deleting something someone has worked hard at creating and which that poster has shared with her friends? I don't know what was explained to you about this highly unusual sanction, alex, but it strikes me that another poster frequently asked to post long expositions on various beliefs and was asked not to by the administrator (if I recall correctly). Perhaps he is trying to be consistent with posts that are not interactive in nature. Just a guess. I like to think that I know a little more about you by what you think is important. But I don't run the park here.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 22:54:10
In reply to Some Semrad Links » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on August 23, 2005, at 20:40:51
> He seems to have been rather influential and important.
Yeah. He's probably said everything I have to say and a lot more besides ;-)
Thanks for the links.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 23:03:25
In reply to UNSUPPORTIVE?!! » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on August 23, 2005, at 20:57:36
>I don't know what was explained to you about this highly unusual sanction, alex,
Precisely what I've told you...
Plus 'official warnings'.>Perhaps he is trying to be consistent with posts that are not interactive in nature.
:-(
I don't mean to be non-interactive...
Comments / criticisms / telling me I'm full of sh*t etc is most welcome.'the purpose of my writing is not to spare other people the trouble of thinking, but rather to stimulate other people to thoughts of their own'
W.
And I'd love to discuss some of those...
>I like to think that I know a little more about you by what you think is important.
Thanks Toph. That means a lot.
>But I don't run the park here.
No. And I don't understand how the park is run...
I tried to understand...
I really really tried.But all I understand is I'm not allowed to make 'those kinds' of posts.
I don't understand what it is about them that is considered unacceptable. When I asked... It just kept on coming back to what I've already said.
But its okay.
It doesn't matter.
I'm happy here.
Though the ironic thing...
Is that I shouldn't really post them
Cause they are a bit identifying...
Posted by Damos on August 23, 2005, at 23:35:29
In reply to Re: Some Semrad Links » Damos, posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 22:54:10
Oh, somehow I doubt that. I have a sneeking suspicion you have something really important to say. Maybe you just haven't found that one thread that brings all the others together yet. That thing that really sparks you, that A-HA moment when you think 'YES, this is what I've been moving toward all these years.' Boy when you do - look out world :-)
Might just buy Semrad: The Heart of a Therapist, it sounds kinda interesting.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 23:48:56
In reply to Re: Some Semrad Links » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on August 23, 2005, at 23:35:29
What one typically finds... Is that everything one could think up... Has been said before. Its just applying it to something where nobody has done that before. Or something like that. Its kind of a mixed blessing to read something and you think 'hey! thats my idea!' Its disillusioning at times that someone else thought of it first. But then its validating too. And sometimes there are critiques of their view that your version can avoid, or you can try and defend their version against subsequent attacks or whatever.
And its a game... Its just a crazy game... I just need to work (a lot) on my style.
(Though I think I should be forgiven for that in that last effort which is more a draft than anything else because I was too busy babbling...)
;-)> Might just buy Semrad: The Heart of a Therapist, it sounds kinda interesting.
Yeah. It did look interesting.
I started reading Sass' book on delusions (well, what was available via amazon) and that looked interesting too...Its just that Sass is more continentally inclined. He's quite harsh on analytic philosophy. About it creating false dichotomies / problems. About philosophers being theory driven rather than case study driven. But... what am i supposed to do????? <whine>
Posted by zenhussy on August 30, 2005, at 22:11:57
In reply to Re: UNSUPPORTIVE?!! » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 23:03:25
ah grasshopper...you appear to have answered your own questions in another post here:
"Regardless of what one intended one has to accept the consequences of ones behaviour / actions.
Because the consequences of the response affect the future probability of similar responses.
Maybe because one learns to think before responding.
Harder to do when you are in a bit of a state
But its one way to learn."
yep, there are many ways to learn. your writings are interesting as always.
__zh
Posted by alexandra_k on August 31, 2005, at 5:57:44
In reply to Re: UNSUPPORTIVE?!! » alexandra_k, posted by zenhussy on August 30, 2005, at 22:11:57
> ah grasshopper...you appear to have answered your own questions in another post here:
> "Regardless of what one intended one has to accept the consequences of ones behaviour / actions.But I don't understand why my writing was followed by the negative consequences (deletion and warnings).
I don't understand what was wrong with posting it.
> Because the consequences of the response affect the future probability of similar responses.
>
> Maybe because one learns to think before responding.
>
> Harder to do when you are in a bit of a state
>
> But its one way to learn."
>
> yep, there are many ways to learn. your writings are interesting as always.
>
> __zh
>
>
Posted by zenhussy on August 31, 2005, at 10:45:55
In reply to Re: UNSUPPORTIVE?!! » zenhussy, posted by alexandra_k on August 31, 2005, at 5:57:44
this is one of those we stand on opposite sides of a canyon and all that is heard are our voices back and forth and the echoes of such....shadows on a cave wall and all that....
with obligations currently this could wait until mindful attention will be given.....as we too have much IRL to manage
living in this world ain't easy.
living in the head is the hardest way and also the easiest...for a while.
living in the heart? well that's a whole 'nother thread....
Posted by alexandra_k on August 31, 2005, at 18:42:05
In reply to Re: UNSUPPORTIVE?!! » alexandra_k, posted by zenhussy on August 31, 2005, at 10:45:55
Its okay.
> living in this world ain't easy.
> living in the head is the hardest way and also the easiest...for a while.I hope I will always spend a significant part of my time there.
> living in the heart? well that's a whole 'nother thread....Indeed. And there are many of those as well. I imagine I will always spend a significant part of my time there too.
And I hope...
That my head isn't too far away from my heart.
In a good way.
And I hope to learn...
To bring my emotions more into line with my head.
In a good way.But I have to do both.
Because they are both parts of who I am.
And all I can say... Is that I guess some people must react / respond fairly negatively to my head stuff for that to be considered unacceptable to post.
I really don't...
Understand what is up with that.
Okay, yeah, people here react / respond negatively to it sometimes too.
But what is that about?
I guess its typically because they don't see some of my other more emotional posts.
Or because they think I'm trying to argue (and I need to get better at not having such an argumentative style which is hard because that is fostered in other contexts)
Or because they...
Feel bad because they don't understand.
Feel bad because they don't know how to respond.
???
I'm not sure.
I agonise over it sometimes...
But...
Well...
Its who I am.
And I try and be sensitive.
I need to get better there but I really do try.
And beyond that...I think...
That the problem is in other people being too quick to react to me. To what I have to say. Without taking the time to understand. Or without understanding. And most especially without asking me why I do it. And considering that.I don't know...
How much to alter ones behaviour to come into line with what other people want...
I guess you have to weigh up how important it is to you... And how much other people are affected. And how much they are able to control how badly they are affected.I don't understand why some people have such a problem with me.
And maybe its my coping strategy...
But I think
I really think...
It is their problem.I tried to understand and I just don't.
And nobody was willing / able to explain it to me.
I wasn't given an explanation at all.
Just repeatedly told that 'those kinds of posts' are unacceptable. I was being officially warned.
No explanation as to WHY they are unacceptable.
And I'm sorry but...
Thats not good enough.
Takes me back to my crazy-making childhood.
Lots of punishers
And no explanation.
F*ck that
You can take that back thanks
I don't like the noise it makes.
Posted by Toph on August 31, 2005, at 21:58:34
In reply to Re: UNSUPPORTIVE?!! » zenhussy, posted by alexandra_k on August 31, 2005, at 18:42:05
I wouldn't dare try to explain the reasoning behind the rules here. This is the board for self expression. What form it takes is irrelevant unless it is uncivil, harmfully triggering (adjective?) or unsupportive. Your papers are none of those that I can see. But piss on that. It bothers me that you should feel a need to defend yourself. I think I recall you having a few tussles with others here, but haven't they ultimately been about ideas not your character. You are among the brightest and most interesting and supportive people I know here. Trust me this is not idle flattery, alex, I feel kind of fortunate whenever you address me on this forum. Your are special. I'm am sure others feel this way. This is not about your character. It certainly is troublesome that your your work was rejected without the kind of supportive explanation one would assume would come from the administration of a mental health support forum. That the incident apparently caused you to feel personally rejected is shameful in my view.
Posted by Damos on August 31, 2005, at 22:25:04
In reply to Re: UNSUPPORTIVE?!! » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on August 31, 2005, at 21:58:34
Thanks Toph, there's nothing I can or need to add, you said it so well. She is everything you said and a whole lot more.
Posted by zenhussy on August 31, 2005, at 22:34:44
In reply to Re: UNSUPPORTIVE?!! » zenhussy, posted by alexandra_k on August 31, 2005, at 18:42:05
politely bowing out and will pick up in another thread at another time as the ways of this place do not allow for the expression desired.
nothing more can be added.
__zh
Posted by alexandra_k on September 1, 2005, at 0:13:09
In reply to Re: UNSUPPORTIVE?!! » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on August 31, 2005, at 21:58:34
Thanks guys. You both mean a whole heap to me too.
:-)
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Writing | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.