Jeg er ikke en af de største Jan Garbarek-fans. Men denne CD er helt klart en favorit i samlingen.
lørdag den 26. september 2009
Rosensfole
Jeg er ikke en af de største Jan Garbarek-fans. Men denne CD er helt klart en favorit i samlingen.
mandag den 21. september 2009
Et professionelt psykologisk Nej! til livet
Brevkassesvar fra psykolog Susan Schlüter til en spørger, der gerne vil vide, hvad vedkommende kan gøre for en veninde, der går med selvmordstanker:
"Intet - bortset fra, at gøre din veninde opmærksom på, at det er hendes valg, og det har du ingen indflydelse på, eller kan påtage dig ansvar herfor! Du havde måske overvejet at overvåge hende 24 timer i døgnet?
Glem det, og afvis hendes 'overvejelser'! Bed hende i stedet om at søge hjælp - for der er hjælp at hente hos professionelle - bl. a. psykologer!
Du kan også fortælle hende, at hvis hun virkelig vil straffe, de mennesker, der må være for og omkring hende, og som holder af hende og elsker hende - ja, så er det ganske effektivt!"
På ganske få sætninger ganske professionelt psykologisk gennemført kriminalisering og tabuisering af menneskelig lidelse. Et professionelt psykologisk DON'T!, et professionelt psykologisk NEJ!!! som svar på et eksistentielt lidende NEJ!
Jeg er glad for, at både mine venner og min terapeut ikke var mere angste, end at de kunne få sig til at sige, omend ikke nødvendigvis: JAAA!!!, så dog: hmjahhh.
"Mot det förgångna: tack, till det kommande: ja!" Også når det er selvmord.
_______________
Jeg må indrømme, at brevkassesvaret lige umiddelbart ramte hårdt, lige i mellemgulvet. Mere "enlightened" er jeg ikke. Men, selvfølgeligt, ja, eksistentiel angst er et faktum. Også, og måske specielt, blandt professionelle. Sådan er det. Ja.
"Intet - bortset fra, at gøre din veninde opmærksom på, at det er hendes valg, og det har du ingen indflydelse på, eller kan påtage dig ansvar herfor! Du havde måske overvejet at overvåge hende 24 timer i døgnet?
Glem det, og afvis hendes 'overvejelser'! Bed hende i stedet om at søge hjælp - for der er hjælp at hente hos professionelle - bl. a. psykologer!
Du kan også fortælle hende, at hvis hun virkelig vil straffe, de mennesker, der må være for og omkring hende, og som holder af hende og elsker hende - ja, så er det ganske effektivt!"
På ganske få sætninger ganske professionelt psykologisk gennemført kriminalisering og tabuisering af menneskelig lidelse. Et professionelt psykologisk DON'T!, et professionelt psykologisk NEJ!!! som svar på et eksistentielt lidende NEJ!
Jeg er glad for, at både mine venner og min terapeut ikke var mere angste, end at de kunne få sig til at sige, omend ikke nødvendigvis: JAAA!!!, så dog: hmjahhh.
"Mot det förgångna: tack, till det kommande: ja!" Også når det er selvmord.
_______________
Jeg må indrømme, at brevkassesvaret lige umiddelbart ramte hårdt, lige i mellemgulvet. Mere "enlightened" er jeg ikke. Men, selvfølgeligt, ja, eksistentiel angst er et faktum. Også, og måske specielt, blandt professionelle. Sådan er det. Ja.
søndag den 20. september 2009
fredag den 18. september 2009
Will Hall om udtrapning ud af psykofarmaka - og meget mere
Gianna har postet Will Hall's foredrag "Coming off medication; a harm reduction approach" (ca. 30 min., engelsk) på hendes blog. Will har holdt foredraget i eftermiddags ved First World Congress Hearing Voices i Maastricht, Holland. Klik på linket øverst i indlægget for at gå til Gianna's blog, hvor du kan lytte til det.
"Åh, bare jeg var normal!"
Her er, hvad i går glip af:
The Unknown Citizen
by W. H. Auden
He was found by the Bureau of Statistics to be
One against whom there was no official complaint,
And all the reports on his conduct agree
That, in the modern sense of an old-fashioned word, he was a saint
For in everything he did he served the Greater Community.
Except for the War till the day he retired
He worked in a factory and never got fired,
But satisfied his employers, Fudge Motors Inc.
Yet he wasn't a scab or odd in his views,
For his Union reports that he paid his dues,
(Our report on his Union shows it was sound)
And our Social Psychology workers found
That he was Popular with his mates and liked to drink.
The Press are convinced that he bought a Paper every day
And that his reactions to advertisements were normal in every way.
Policies taken out in his name prove that he was fully insured
And his Health-card shows he was once in a hospital but left it cured,
Both Producers Research and High-Grade Living declare
He was fully sensible to the advantages of the Installment Plan
And had everything necessary to the Modern Man,
A phonograph, a radio, a car and a frigidaire.
Our researchers into Public Opinion are content
That he held the proper opinions for the time of year;
When there was peace he was for peace when there was war he went.
He was married and and added five children to the population,
Which our Eugenist says was the right number for a parent of his generation,
And our teachers report that he never interfered with their education.
Was he free? Was he Happy? The question is absurd:
Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard.
The Unknown Citizen
by W. H. Auden
He was found by the Bureau of Statistics to be
One against whom there was no official complaint,
And all the reports on his conduct agree
That, in the modern sense of an old-fashioned word, he was a saint
For in everything he did he served the Greater Community.
Except for the War till the day he retired
He worked in a factory and never got fired,
But satisfied his employers, Fudge Motors Inc.
Yet he wasn't a scab or odd in his views,
For his Union reports that he paid his dues,
(Our report on his Union shows it was sound)
And our Social Psychology workers found
That he was Popular with his mates and liked to drink.
The Press are convinced that he bought a Paper every day
And that his reactions to advertisements were normal in every way.
Policies taken out in his name prove that he was fully insured
And his Health-card shows he was once in a hospital but left it cured,
Both Producers Research and High-Grade Living declare
He was fully sensible to the advantages of the Installment Plan
And had everything necessary to the Modern Man,
A phonograph, a radio, a car and a frigidaire.
Our researchers into Public Opinion are content
That he held the proper opinions for the time of year;
When there was peace he was for peace when there was war he went.
He was married and and added five children to the population,
Which our Eugenist says was the right number for a parent of his generation,
And our teachers report that he never interfered with their education.
Was he free? Was he Happy? The question is absurd:
Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard.
torsdag den 17. september 2009
Kampen fortsætter
Jeg hørte forleden om/fra en person, der planlagde at sulte sig selv ihjel. I protest bl.a. mod de overgreb, vedkommende blev udsat for i psykiatrien. Det er ikke altid, at reaktionen kommer så bevidst, så den nærmest må betegnes som en formel protestaktion. Som regel kommer den ganske spontant og ubevidst, som en "forværring af sygdommen", som "symptomer". Hvilket så gør det svært for den protesterende at erkende sin egen protest som protest, og nemt for systemet, at indbilde den protesterende (og alle andre involverede), at vedkommendes protest ikke er en protest, men altså "sygdom". Resultatet er "kronisk sygdom", og psykiatribrugere, pårørende og politikere, der mener, psykiatrien redder liv. Resultatet er, at psykiatrien overlever. Kampen mod de protesterende og deres protest. Og så længe der kæmpes, koster det liv. De protesterendes. På den ene eller anden måde.
Her er, lettere redigeret for at sikre anonymitet, hvad jeg skrev til ovennævnte person (originalversionen, jeg gider stadigt ikke oversætte):
Suicide is the ultimate, strongest, most reactive and violent, "NO!" to abuse. I guess, I'm far from alone in that I've considered this "NO!" many times in my life, since I felt, I'd tried to say "NO!" in every other to me available way without having been heard. I considered it sometimes consciously, in the shape of planning an action like yours would be, sometimes more unconsciously, in the shape of "voices", telling me to off myself.
What finally made me reject suicide as a manifestation of my "NO!" to abuse was the insight that there was no chance to have it understood as my logic response to a world that was slowly killing me - like in : "Look, this is what you're doing to me!" - but that it, as X says, undoubtedly would be interpreted as a meaningless manifestation of meaningless madness, "mental illness", and thus a justification for more abuse, "treatment". And even if I might have escaped personally, offing myself would only have strengthened psychiatry in general: "Look, we need more treatment, more locked wards, more restraints, more pills, more ect, more psychiatry, to prevent suicide! If only we'd been able to force more treatment on her/force treatment on her earlier, she might be alive."
What I did instead of offing myself was that I started to look for new, less reactive, less violent ways to word my "NO!". Without being aware of it at the time, I made use of the Buddhist concept of not reacting to content. At least to a certain extent. While whoever made you his enemy always will seek to turn your reaction to him into an excuse for him to attack you even more fiercely (more abuse), not reacting to his provocations disarms him most effectively. The lesser "reactive", or violent, you react , the smaller an amount of strength in the shape of violence you give your enemy to turn against you. If you want whoever made you his enemy to overcome you, you give him all the strength you have in your anger and despair, and let him turn it against you.
If it is psychiatry, who's made you its enemy, you strengthen it by feeding it more of what it is living on: "symptoms". Committing suicide is usually regarded a "symptom" of "mental illness", certainly if the person in question is identified as a "mental patient". No matter what statement of protest you attach to it. Also the statement will be turned against you, defined a "symptom" of "mental illness" ("lack of insight", you can't see, that there's no reason to protest anything, that they're only trying to help you, not punish you, because you're so sick, you don't even know you're sick... ).
To overcome psychiatry, you have to starve it, not you, by getting in control of your "symptoms", at least to the extent that psychiatry no longer is able to make them out, and eventually by doing what psychiatry tells everybody is impossible to achieve: recover. It can be done. First step: become aware of these mechanisms. Psychiatry provokes you to feed it "symptoms", for instance by starving yourself to death, because it needs your "symptomatic" reaction to survive. Don't give them what they're so hungry for!
Relateret: Mere om selvmord i psykiatrien
_______________
For resten: Nok, som jeg skriver i kommentarerne, ikke et bevidst ordvalg, men alligevel meget sigende er denne "Freudian slip"... Omend konklusionen så bliver lidt forkert.
Her er, lettere redigeret for at sikre anonymitet, hvad jeg skrev til ovennævnte person (originalversionen, jeg gider stadigt ikke oversætte):
Suicide is the ultimate, strongest, most reactive and violent, "NO!" to abuse. I guess, I'm far from alone in that I've considered this "NO!" many times in my life, since I felt, I'd tried to say "NO!" in every other to me available way without having been heard. I considered it sometimes consciously, in the shape of planning an action like yours would be, sometimes more unconsciously, in the shape of "voices", telling me to off myself.
What finally made me reject suicide as a manifestation of my "NO!" to abuse was the insight that there was no chance to have it understood as my logic response to a world that was slowly killing me - like in : "Look, this is what you're doing to me!" - but that it, as X says, undoubtedly would be interpreted as a meaningless manifestation of meaningless madness, "mental illness", and thus a justification for more abuse, "treatment". And even if I might have escaped personally, offing myself would only have strengthened psychiatry in general: "Look, we need more treatment, more locked wards, more restraints, more pills, more ect, more psychiatry, to prevent suicide! If only we'd been able to force more treatment on her/force treatment on her earlier, she might be alive."
What I did instead of offing myself was that I started to look for new, less reactive, less violent ways to word my "NO!". Without being aware of it at the time, I made use of the Buddhist concept of not reacting to content. At least to a certain extent. While whoever made you his enemy always will seek to turn your reaction to him into an excuse for him to attack you even more fiercely (more abuse), not reacting to his provocations disarms him most effectively. The lesser "reactive", or violent, you react , the smaller an amount of strength in the shape of violence you give your enemy to turn against you. If you want whoever made you his enemy to overcome you, you give him all the strength you have in your anger and despair, and let him turn it against you.
If it is psychiatry, who's made you its enemy, you strengthen it by feeding it more of what it is living on: "symptoms". Committing suicide is usually regarded a "symptom" of "mental illness", certainly if the person in question is identified as a "mental patient". No matter what statement of protest you attach to it. Also the statement will be turned against you, defined a "symptom" of "mental illness" ("lack of insight", you can't see, that there's no reason to protest anything, that they're only trying to help you, not punish you, because you're so sick, you don't even know you're sick... ).
To overcome psychiatry, you have to starve it, not you, by getting in control of your "symptoms", at least to the extent that psychiatry no longer is able to make them out, and eventually by doing what psychiatry tells everybody is impossible to achieve: recover. It can be done. First step: become aware of these mechanisms. Psychiatry provokes you to feed it "symptoms", for instance by starving yourself to death, because it needs your "symptomatic" reaction to survive. Don't give them what they're so hungry for!
Relateret: Mere om selvmord i psykiatrien
_______________
For resten: Nok, som jeg skriver i kommentarerne, ikke et bevidst ordvalg, men alligevel meget sigende er denne "Freudian slip"... Omend konklusionen så bliver lidt forkert.
onsdag den 16. september 2009
"De - og os", omvendt
Om ikke så tit, så kigger jeg jo dog af og til forbi Outsiderens hjemmeside. Her til aften kom jeg ved et sådant sjældent besøg til at læse interviewartiklen "Åbenhedens vej" i hvilken Katrine Woel fortæller om det at være nådesløst åben omkring hendes "psykiske sygdom".
Artiklen citerer Katrine: "Til andre siger jeg måske bare, at jeg lider af angst og nogen gange burer jeg mig inde. Og alle har jo et eller andet forhold til angst. Så derfor er reaktionen lidt: Nå, er det ikke andet. OK, det kan vi godt forstå." (min kursivering) Og, 'Åh?' tænker jeg, 'Så er alle måske 'psykisk syg'? Eller måske er ingen i virkeligheden 'psykisk syg', heller ikke Katrine?'...
Men nej, der er forskel: "Der er dog noget, Katrine Woel ikke kan opnå blandt sine medstuderende på Københavns Universitet eller kollegerne på arbejdspladsen – og det er en virkelig forståelse af, hvad det vil sige at være psykisk syg. Den kan hun kun finde blandt andre psykisk syge." Det undrer mig en smule. Jeg husker de mange lange aftener - og nætter - med rødvin og/eller tequila - og for nogens vedkommende noget godt at ryge til - hvor vi, jeg og vennerne, sad i et eller andet køkken og diskuterede alt fra atomkraft til James Joyce's forfatterskab, og også til vores respektive seneste selvmordsovervejelser/-forsøg. Der var ikke nogen af os, der var stemplet "psykisk syg". Vi var bare mennesker. Sådan helt almindeligt menneskelige mennesker. Med følelser, som angst og vrede og glæde og sorg og forvirring, og med tanker, om at redde verdenen, om at være udvalgt, noget, og somme tider også om at sige én gang for alle "nej tak!" til rotteræset.
Vi forstod måske ikke ret meget af, hvad det vil sige at være "psykisk syg". Men vi forstod en del af, hvad det vil sige at være menneske - i en syg verden. Eller måske var vi allesammen "psykisk syg", og klarede bare på en eller anden måde, at flyve under psykiatriens radar? Eller er det måske i sidste ende et spørgsmål om, hvorvidt man selv kridter skillelinien op, f.eks. ved at tale om "angstpsykose" i stedet for om eksistentiel angst?
Katrine Woel har ret. Det kommer meget an på, hvordan man formulerer sig. Og ja, der findes en hel del mennesker, der har meget svært ved et emne som selvmord. Imidlertid kender jeg også en del ikke-stemplede mennesker, som man sagtens kan tale menneskelig lidelse med. Helt hen til selvmord. Når bare man formulerer sig menneskeligt. "Hvorfor ikke kalde det en 'alvorlig personlig krise'?" som Loren Mosher sagde.
Artiklen citerer Katrine: "Til andre siger jeg måske bare, at jeg lider af angst og nogen gange burer jeg mig inde. Og alle har jo et eller andet forhold til angst. Så derfor er reaktionen lidt: Nå, er det ikke andet. OK, det kan vi godt forstå." (min kursivering) Og, 'Åh?' tænker jeg, 'Så er alle måske 'psykisk syg'? Eller måske er ingen i virkeligheden 'psykisk syg', heller ikke Katrine?'...
Men nej, der er forskel: "Der er dog noget, Katrine Woel ikke kan opnå blandt sine medstuderende på Københavns Universitet eller kollegerne på arbejdspladsen – og det er en virkelig forståelse af, hvad det vil sige at være psykisk syg. Den kan hun kun finde blandt andre psykisk syge." Det undrer mig en smule. Jeg husker de mange lange aftener - og nætter - med rødvin og/eller tequila - og for nogens vedkommende noget godt at ryge til - hvor vi, jeg og vennerne, sad i et eller andet køkken og diskuterede alt fra atomkraft til James Joyce's forfatterskab, og også til vores respektive seneste selvmordsovervejelser/-forsøg. Der var ikke nogen af os, der var stemplet "psykisk syg". Vi var bare mennesker. Sådan helt almindeligt menneskelige mennesker. Med følelser, som angst og vrede og glæde og sorg og forvirring, og med tanker, om at redde verdenen, om at være udvalgt, noget, og somme tider også om at sige én gang for alle "nej tak!" til rotteræset.
Vi forstod måske ikke ret meget af, hvad det vil sige at være "psykisk syg". Men vi forstod en del af, hvad det vil sige at være menneske - i en syg verden. Eller måske var vi allesammen "psykisk syg", og klarede bare på en eller anden måde, at flyve under psykiatriens radar? Eller er det måske i sidste ende et spørgsmål om, hvorvidt man selv kridter skillelinien op, f.eks. ved at tale om "angstpsykose" i stedet for om eksistentiel angst?
Katrine Woel har ret. Det kommer meget an på, hvordan man formulerer sig. Og ja, der findes en hel del mennesker, der har meget svært ved et emne som selvmord. Imidlertid kender jeg også en del ikke-stemplede mennesker, som man sagtens kan tale menneskelig lidelse med. Helt hen til selvmord. Når bare man formulerer sig menneskeligt. "Hvorfor ikke kalde det en 'alvorlig personlig krise'?" som Loren Mosher sagde.
lørdag den 12. september 2009
"Labels are only useful on jars, period." - Bonfire Madigan Shive
Her en helt speciel - en google-søgning på dansk giver fem resultater'*, fem! Nå, nu bliver det da i hvert fald seks, med dette indlæg... - lørdagaften-treat: Bonfire Madigan Shive, også kaldt BMad, som i "be mad"...
Udover at være musiker er Bonfire Madigan også aktivist og en af initiativtagerne til The Icarus Project. Her et kort interview med Bonfire Madigan, bl.a. om det at ikke være "psykisk syg":
Interviewet er lavet af Sabrina Chapadjiev, der har udgivet bogen Live Through This. On Creativity and Self-Destruction, som også indeholder et bidrag af Bonfire Madigan.
Et længere interview med BMad kan man høre her på Madness Radio. Ja, og så har hun jo også været gæst på MindFreedom Live Free Mad Pride Radio her til aften.
_______________
* Hvoraf det ene er et link til nogle katteavleres hjemmeside...
Udover at være musiker er Bonfire Madigan også aktivist og en af initiativtagerne til The Icarus Project. Her et kort interview med Bonfire Madigan, bl.a. om det at ikke være "psykisk syg":
Interviewet er lavet af Sabrina Chapadjiev, der har udgivet bogen Live Through This. On Creativity and Self-Destruction, som også indeholder et bidrag af Bonfire Madigan.
Et længere interview med BMad kan man høre her på Madness Radio. Ja, og så har hun jo også været gæst på MindFreedom Live Free Mad Pride Radio her til aften.
_______________
* Hvoraf det ene er et link til nogle katteavleres hjemmeside...
fredag den 11. september 2009
Mere om drabet på Torben Martin Bødker
Her kan man i kommentarerne til indlægget læse, hvor meget "amok" Torben Martin Bødker gik, før han blev skudt: Han åbnede døren for de to strissere, satte sig i sin sofa og bad dem om at gå, da de spurgte, om de skulle visitere ham. Wow! Jeg må nok sige, "sabelmanden", hvis fingeraftryk mærkeligt nok ikke var på sablen, var da virkeligt helt ustyrlig!
Det er statsadvokat Lise-Lotte Nilas enig i, hvorfor hun er nået frem til, at det var helt i orden, at strisserne affyrede tre skud mod Torben Martin Bødker og dræbte ham.
Jeg kan nu på en måde lidt forstå strisserne. Med den skrækpropaganda, der findes alle vegne angående "de farlige sindssyge", er det måske ikke så forunderligt, at strisserne ved det mindste tegn på modstand går i koma og skyder vildt om sig.
På den anden side spørger jeg mig, hvordan man egentligt retfærdiggør indblanding af politiet overhovedet. Det er måske en forbrydelse, at være såpas meget menneske, at man reagerer på umenneskelige oplevelser, oplevet f.eks. under en udsendelse som soldat i Bosnien, så man har brug for hjælp? Men altså, hvis det er en forbrydelse, så har man vel også ret til en advokat og en ordentlig retssag i forbindelse med at man bures inde? Ligesom man i så fald har ret til at sige "nej tak" til medicinsk behandling? Og hvis det ikke er, så har strisserne vel næppe ret til at mase sig på og ignorere en høflig opfordring til at skride ud af ens private hjem?
Relateret:
Gik amok???
Det er en brist, når man ikke er fuldstændigt afstumpet
Det er statsadvokat Lise-Lotte Nilas enig i, hvorfor hun er nået frem til, at det var helt i orden, at strisserne affyrede tre skud mod Torben Martin Bødker og dræbte ham.
Jeg kan nu på en måde lidt forstå strisserne. Med den skrækpropaganda, der findes alle vegne angående "de farlige sindssyge", er det måske ikke så forunderligt, at strisserne ved det mindste tegn på modstand går i koma og skyder vildt om sig.
På den anden side spørger jeg mig, hvordan man egentligt retfærdiggør indblanding af politiet overhovedet. Det er måske en forbrydelse, at være såpas meget menneske, at man reagerer på umenneskelige oplevelser, oplevet f.eks. under en udsendelse som soldat i Bosnien, så man har brug for hjælp? Men altså, hvis det er en forbrydelse, så har man vel også ret til en advokat og en ordentlig retssag i forbindelse med at man bures inde? Ligesom man i så fald har ret til at sige "nej tak" til medicinsk behandling? Og hvis det ikke er, så har strisserne vel næppe ret til at mase sig på og ignorere en høflig opfordring til at skride ud af ens private hjem?
Relateret:
Gik amok???
Det er en brist, når man ikke er fuldstændigt afstumpet
søndag den 6. september 2009
"Search inside your heart..."
Facebook group "The incarceration of John"
Konference "Recovery: A Human Right"
Min YouTube-kommentar: "What is traumatizing to human nature? The very normal though also very unnatural circumstances, that alienate it from itself. Unfortunately, violence is just all too normal in our culture. Biopsychiatry being a kind of meta-violence, as it violates those, who react to our culture's violence. (...)"
torsdag den 3. september 2009
The end of suffering - genes and schizophrenia
Jeg har oprindeligt skrevet dette indlæg for Gianna Kali's blog Beyond Meds. Siden det beskæftiger sig med et emne, der på det seneste, igen, har været i de danske medier, poster jeg det også her, omend på engelsk, da jeg egentligt ikke har lyst til at oversætte. Måske får jeg lyst til det på et senere tidspunkt, måske ikke. However, her er indlægget:
The end of suffering - genes and schizophrenia
"Det är synd om människorna," is an often quoted line from August Strindberg's A Dream Play. Translated into English, the line becomes: "Human beings are to be pitied," which is a correct literal translation. Nevertheless, it fails to capture the very essence of the Swedish original, and often leads to the misunderstanding that Strindberg intended to say, human beings were to be pitied because of the suffering that is - being human. No, human beings are not to be pitied because their suffering in the world is without comparison, inevitable, and sometimes even endless. They're not to be pitied because of the suffering that is both humanity's greatest challenge and its greatest gift at the same time. There's nothing in nature, human or other, that doesn't serve a purpose. And there's only one purpose: life.
Human beings are to be pitied because they fail to recognize and acknowledge this. Because they have made suffering their worst enemy, whom they fight with all their power and strength. Because they have waged war on nature, not least on their own nature, on themselves, on life.
That is what Strindberg's line and A Dream Play, which Strindberg himself said was "the child of my greatest pain", as a whole is all about.
The Danish newspaper B.T., a tabloid, ran an article on Tuesday, September 1st, 2009, under the headline "Skizofrene fostre kan sorteres fra" - "Schizophrenic embryos can be screened out".
According to another article at the website of University of Copenhagen, "Genetic Causes of Schizophrenia", a group of European researchers has found chromosomal changes in individuals labelled with "schizophrenia", that they interpret to be the main cause of the "illness". Their research is now granted a fund of additionally 30 million Danish crowns, in part paid by Lundbeck, a Danish pharmaceutical company, specializing in drugs for the "treatment" of "mental illnesses", Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. Cipralex/Lexapro is a Lundbeck-product, as is Serdolect, a lesser known "atypical antipsychotic", in part by the Danish National Advanced Technology Foundation, and the Danish Medical Research Council.
The additional funding is granted in order for the researchers to develop diagnostic tools, a new generation of drugs, targeting the mutated, "defect" chromosomes, and tools to screen embryos for the chromosome changes in question, so that parents to be can choose an abortion if the embryo shows these chromosome changes.
The few critical voices that are heard here and there in the media don't go beyond questioning if it is "ethical" to screen out and dispose of embryos, that may or may not actually develop "schizophrenia" later in life, since the researchers admit, that it takes more than the identified mutated chromosomes for the "illness" to manifest. They also have found the specific chromosome changes in individuals who are not labelled, and do not display signs of the "illness", just as they found labelled individuals without the changes. So, basically, the results are not significantly different from what we have seen this kind of research conjure up so many times in the past.
Which obviously is significantly different, increased, once more, is our culture's belief in Social-Darwinism, and eugenic weapons in its war against our existential suffering, against our own nature. Because what the researchers really have found is not the cause of any biological brain disease, but the formal, biological effects of the challenges, humanity faces: social injustice, violence, abuse, exploitation, alienation...
At least since Paul Hammersley and John Read's meta study, we all know, that most people who are labelled with "schizophrenia", are survivors of abuse. And while Hammersley and Read concentrated on physical and sexual abuse, abuse has many faces. Most of what our culture values as "normal" in fact is unnatural, actually alienating us from (our) nature. It is a "toxic mimicry" of nature, to use Derrick Jensen's terminology. To expect our nature to submit to this toxic mimicry without resistance, and deny itself, is a kind of abuse. We're all traumatized by this abuse. It's what the Fall Of Man refers to. No one is innocent.
What we also know by now is that childhood trauma can change both neuronal pathways in the brain and genes. Like all form in this world, also genes react and adapt to the environment they're surrounded and influenced by. The form, our body and also our genes, is always a symbol, a sign, a "symptom", reflecting on a formal level whatever formal, existential, spiritual, psychological, social, etc. challenges we face by reacting to these challenges. A nonreactive entity, if it is a human being, a person, or a single gene, is not fit to survive in this world as it is defenceless exposed to it's destructive abusiveness.
Mutated chromosomes are not the cause of anything. Neither of "schizophrenia". They are a symptom - of the challenges, the social injustice, the abuse, the alienation, the violence and destructiveness we face in this world.
We can try to eliminate our suffering, our reaction to the challenges that surround us, and to gene-manipulate respectively abort humanity into a state of nonreactivity. It will be exactly this, the abortion of humanity. As nonreactive to our environment we will no longer be able to survive. Nonreactivity to the challenges we face will allow this world's destructiveness to unrestrained destroy not only the basis for our biological survival, but, and even worse, since our biological survival depends on it, the basis for our spiritual survival, for the survival of what makes us human: our souls, our suffering souls. We can try. While the researchers, and everybody else, are positive to have found the cause of "schizophrenia", as long as there's one single alive human being left on this earth, they will react to the world. To eliminate existential suffering, we will have to eliminate humanity. Although the Nazis were extremely efficient, murdering people who suffered in the way that is labelled "schizophrenia", although they sterilized everybody whom they did not murder, preventing them from having children, the percentage of people who met the criteria for "schizophrenia" did not decrease in Nazi-Germany. The percentage of Jews did. Remarkably. What does this tell us about the "genetic causes of schizophrenia"?
In the meantime, it nevertheless looks like humanity won't rest until it has not overcome but eliminated suffering by perfectionizing its cultural nightmare's alienation and deadness. It looks like we will eliminate nature, both our own and that around us - and end up perfectly inhumane. The latest research on the "genetic causes of schizophrenia", and the consequences it inevitably will have, is another huge battle won in our war against ourselves, on our way toward a perfectly inhumane world.
So I ask: Is it "ethical" to eliminate life's greatest gift to humanity - humanity itself?
I know, that this is a controversial viewpoint. 'You want people to suffer?!' I hear you, with disbelief. Yes. I want people to suffer. So that they can become aware and conscious. So that they can wake up in the dream, wake up from our cultural nightmare's emotional alienation and deadness. So that they can overcome suffering, realizing that what they thought was their worst enemy in truth is their best friend. So that they can become alive, in the true meaning of the word.
You may accuse me of romanticizing suffering, of being detached from reality, having my head in the clouds. You wouldn't be the first to do so. I'll answer you, that I've suffered myself. Indescribably. And I still do suffer. From being an alive human being. I wouldn't want to trade that for anything in the whole wide world. Suffering isn't a - romantic - accessory to life. It is the incentive necessary to bring about change, to have us keep walking on the road of constant change. And only as long as we keep walking that road are we truly alive. Suffering is not a superfluous accessory to life. There's nothing superfluous, dispensable, in nature. And suffering is natural. It is life.
The end of suffering - genes and schizophrenia
"Det är synd om människorna," is an often quoted line from August Strindberg's A Dream Play. Translated into English, the line becomes: "Human beings are to be pitied," which is a correct literal translation. Nevertheless, it fails to capture the very essence of the Swedish original, and often leads to the misunderstanding that Strindberg intended to say, human beings were to be pitied because of the suffering that is - being human. No, human beings are not to be pitied because their suffering in the world is without comparison, inevitable, and sometimes even endless. They're not to be pitied because of the suffering that is both humanity's greatest challenge and its greatest gift at the same time. There's nothing in nature, human or other, that doesn't serve a purpose. And there's only one purpose: life.
Human beings are to be pitied because they fail to recognize and acknowledge this. Because they have made suffering their worst enemy, whom they fight with all their power and strength. Because they have waged war on nature, not least on their own nature, on themselves, on life.
That is what Strindberg's line and A Dream Play, which Strindberg himself said was "the child of my greatest pain", as a whole is all about.
The Danish newspaper B.T., a tabloid, ran an article on Tuesday, September 1st, 2009, under the headline "Skizofrene fostre kan sorteres fra" - "Schizophrenic embryos can be screened out".
According to another article at the website of University of Copenhagen, "Genetic Causes of Schizophrenia", a group of European researchers has found chromosomal changes in individuals labelled with "schizophrenia", that they interpret to be the main cause of the "illness". Their research is now granted a fund of additionally 30 million Danish crowns, in part paid by Lundbeck, a Danish pharmaceutical company, specializing in drugs for the "treatment" of "mental illnesses", Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. Cipralex/Lexapro is a Lundbeck-product, as is Serdolect, a lesser known "atypical antipsychotic", in part by the Danish National Advanced Technology Foundation, and the Danish Medical Research Council.
The additional funding is granted in order for the researchers to develop diagnostic tools, a new generation of drugs, targeting the mutated, "defect" chromosomes, and tools to screen embryos for the chromosome changes in question, so that parents to be can choose an abortion if the embryo shows these chromosome changes.
The few critical voices that are heard here and there in the media don't go beyond questioning if it is "ethical" to screen out and dispose of embryos, that may or may not actually develop "schizophrenia" later in life, since the researchers admit, that it takes more than the identified mutated chromosomes for the "illness" to manifest. They also have found the specific chromosome changes in individuals who are not labelled, and do not display signs of the "illness", just as they found labelled individuals without the changes. So, basically, the results are not significantly different from what we have seen this kind of research conjure up so many times in the past.
Which obviously is significantly different, increased, once more, is our culture's belief in Social-Darwinism, and eugenic weapons in its war against our existential suffering, against our own nature. Because what the researchers really have found is not the cause of any biological brain disease, but the formal, biological effects of the challenges, humanity faces: social injustice, violence, abuse, exploitation, alienation...
At least since Paul Hammersley and John Read's meta study, we all know, that most people who are labelled with "schizophrenia", are survivors of abuse. And while Hammersley and Read concentrated on physical and sexual abuse, abuse has many faces. Most of what our culture values as "normal" in fact is unnatural, actually alienating us from (our) nature. It is a "toxic mimicry" of nature, to use Derrick Jensen's terminology. To expect our nature to submit to this toxic mimicry without resistance, and deny itself, is a kind of abuse. We're all traumatized by this abuse. It's what the Fall Of Man refers to. No one is innocent.
What we also know by now is that childhood trauma can change both neuronal pathways in the brain and genes. Like all form in this world, also genes react and adapt to the environment they're surrounded and influenced by. The form, our body and also our genes, is always a symbol, a sign, a "symptom", reflecting on a formal level whatever formal, existential, spiritual, psychological, social, etc. challenges we face by reacting to these challenges. A nonreactive entity, if it is a human being, a person, or a single gene, is not fit to survive in this world as it is defenceless exposed to it's destructive abusiveness.
Mutated chromosomes are not the cause of anything. Neither of "schizophrenia". They are a symptom - of the challenges, the social injustice, the abuse, the alienation, the violence and destructiveness we face in this world.
We can try to eliminate our suffering, our reaction to the challenges that surround us, and to gene-manipulate respectively abort humanity into a state of nonreactivity. It will be exactly this, the abortion of humanity. As nonreactive to our environment we will no longer be able to survive. Nonreactivity to the challenges we face will allow this world's destructiveness to unrestrained destroy not only the basis for our biological survival, but, and even worse, since our biological survival depends on it, the basis for our spiritual survival, for the survival of what makes us human: our souls, our suffering souls. We can try. While the researchers, and everybody else, are positive to have found the cause of "schizophrenia", as long as there's one single alive human being left on this earth, they will react to the world. To eliminate existential suffering, we will have to eliminate humanity. Although the Nazis were extremely efficient, murdering people who suffered in the way that is labelled "schizophrenia", although they sterilized everybody whom they did not murder, preventing them from having children, the percentage of people who met the criteria for "schizophrenia" did not decrease in Nazi-Germany. The percentage of Jews did. Remarkably. What does this tell us about the "genetic causes of schizophrenia"?
In the meantime, it nevertheless looks like humanity won't rest until it has not overcome but eliminated suffering by perfectionizing its cultural nightmare's alienation and deadness. It looks like we will eliminate nature, both our own and that around us - and end up perfectly inhumane. The latest research on the "genetic causes of schizophrenia", and the consequences it inevitably will have, is another huge battle won in our war against ourselves, on our way toward a perfectly inhumane world.
So I ask: Is it "ethical" to eliminate life's greatest gift to humanity - humanity itself?
I know, that this is a controversial viewpoint. 'You want people to suffer?!' I hear you, with disbelief. Yes. I want people to suffer. So that they can become aware and conscious. So that they can wake up in the dream, wake up from our cultural nightmare's emotional alienation and deadness. So that they can overcome suffering, realizing that what they thought was their worst enemy in truth is their best friend. So that they can become alive, in the true meaning of the word.
You may accuse me of romanticizing suffering, of being detached from reality, having my head in the clouds. You wouldn't be the first to do so. I'll answer you, that I've suffered myself. Indescribably. And I still do suffer. From being an alive human being. I wouldn't want to trade that for anything in the whole wide world. Suffering isn't a - romantic - accessory to life. It is the incentive necessary to bring about change, to have us keep walking on the road of constant change. And only as long as we keep walking that road are we truly alive. Suffering is not a superfluous accessory to life. There's nothing superfluous, dispensable, in nature. And suffering is natural. It is life.
Abonner på:
Opslag (Atom)
Opslag
