Psycle

R.D. Laing thought that mental illness was not just the product of biological processes, but the result of the sick societies we live in. He used to say that:

Insanity is a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world.

He firmly believed that the content of psychotic behaviours had great value as a valid expression of the agony those people felt and even though they might use enigmatic words and personal symbolisms, all those behaviours had an absolute meaning for the people expressing them.

I keep thinking how this is a complete opposite to DSM categories and all these mental problems DSM seems to mention. We're full of labels for every little uncommon thing and we're quite ready to categorize everything, maybe even a little afraid when we can't. I wonder how this affects our relationships with other people as human beings and as psychotherapists too. How open are we to the difference of another? How ready are we to put a "name" to everyone functioning not the way we do, or the "normal" people do?

I have to admit there have been times that I have thought to myself "this person acts like he has OCD" or something like that. I seriously don't like it and I feel bad for doing it but sometimes I just can't help it, even when thinking about my own self! It's the easy way, you know, she/he has that, we're done. But reality is much more complicated and every person behaves in a certain way for a reason, expressing his being in a totally special way. Of course, it's not easy thinking outside the box, thinking with a new way for every new person, but I think it's how we all would like to be treated, isn't it? It may not be easy, but it's worth a try. How open can we be?

Epictetus, a Greek sage and Stoic philosopher used to say (and it's quoted by his most famous pupil, Arrian, in his book "Enchiridion") that:

What upsets people is not things themselves but their judgements about the things. For
example, death is nothing dreadful or else it would have appeared dreadful to Socrates. No, the only dreadful thing about it is men's judgement that it is dreadful.

This very phrase, said Albert Ellis, had an impact on his forming Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy. Ellis thought that a person is more affected by his perceptions of a situation, a lot more than the situation per se.

What's your take on this? Do you believe that how we judge things and the situations we live in affects our reality and opinions, or that our opinions and judgements are formed accordingly to the situations we live in?

I'd say it's a little vice versa and there's not a solid external reality, but then again there's some form of objectivity, or else how come we all agree to what a person with a problem (ie drug abuse, depression, schizophrenia etc) is?

You can find a translated version of Epictetus Enchiridion here.

Hello guys!

This is my brand new blog and it's about... well... I don't really know, something between my thoughts concerning some existential aspects of my readings, or just the very same readings, you know, sharing what I like and whatnot. Always existentially pointed.

I'm an Existential Psychotherapy trainee, and an Existentialism enthusiast, so, you know what to expect, more or less. I look forward to your comments and enlightening opinions, after all, what fun could sharing be without feedback? I could keep a diary instead :-) Bring it on people!