Review of Phenomenology and Lacan on Schizophrenia After the Decade of the Brain by Alphonse de Waelhens

Filed under:Random notes — posted by Schizostroller on December 31, 2020 @ 5:43 am

Phenomenology and Lacan on Schizophrenia After the Decade of the Brain by Alphonse de Waelhens

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I would have given this 5 stars for the de Waelhens, but for Ver Eecke’s introduction.

Ver Eecke’s introduction does a good good job of bringing up to date (2001) later changes in bio-medical psychiatric opinion (to De Waelhens 1978 papers), as well as challenging these bio-medical psychiatric opinions, but from the perspective reading in 2020, this section itself lacks (due to its publication date) even more recent challenges.

Whereas De Waelhens part is very good as a perspective on a challenge to Lacanianism from a phenomenological perspective.

As such, whilst Ver Eecke’s contribution to is a quality survey of later bio-medical opinion and its critiques, it is premised on the primacy of the bio-medical opinion that has been challenged by other models such as the cognitive and trauma models (and their relation to broader epidemiological social models).

Along with neuroscientific models that take plasticity into account, then we can use this later cognitive and trauma models to then come back to look at such phenomenological-psychoanalytic models again (including the problem of Freud’s U-Turn on the existence of abuse), but it is not necessary to (even as Ver Eecke does, ‘grudgingly’) concede to the bio-medical model at all, so it was a not a necessary foregrounding to these papers by De Waelhens even if it would have been perfectly good as a standalone book.

But these two books within books are somehow separate (apart form the specific attempts by Ver Eecke to compare, which are mercifully few)

View all my reviews

Hoisted by his own petard

Filed under:Random notes — posted by Schizostroller on July 11, 2020 @ 3:09 pm

“He hated Lewis Carroll. It was a load of nonsense, and what’s more he spent too much time with that little girl.

Stuff and nonsense! That’s what it was. He hated it so much he had “stuff” tattooed on one set of knuckles on one hand, and “nonsense” on the other. Only thing was, that whilst “stuff” fitted on his knuckles fine, on the other hand there was only room for “nonse-“, the rest of the “-nse” he had tattooed round and down the side of that hand.

His mates tried to point out that he therefore had what amounted to the word “nonce”, at least phonetically, tattooed on one of his knuckles. “Yeah, that’s right”, he said, “I hate nonces like that fucking Lewis Carroll, and this fist is for punching them with”. Unfortunately, a lot of people still thought it meant he was the nonce. So he had to punch a lot of people. And even more unfortunately than that, some of these people were harder than him, and they didn’t like nonces either.”

Trivial Pursuit

Filed under:Random notes — posted by Schizostroller on May 19, 2020 @ 7:56 am

If all five of the senses are perceived through sensual organs, then what we believe we perceive directly ‘with our own eyes’ must obey Newton’s Laws. That physics has discovered relativity and quantum physics is due to the brains conceptual ability. However that the brain makes sense of the other five sensual organs’ perceptions, makes it also a sensual organ. For the brain to interpret the complex impressions the sensual organs perceive it must learn, and this learning comes as much from learned communication from outside, through these sensual organs as it does its own internal workings. That there is a disjunct between these two makes our own experiences our own, but only in a social understanding. As such the phrase ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ should therefore not be misunderstood as a singular, individual interpretation, it allows for difference, but is still some form of social knowledge – mostly via language, but also through emotional interpersonal behaviour . It is for this reason that rather than insisting on homogeneity (which is authoritarian), democracy (although I don’t mean the narrow definition of democracy as ‘only’ voting for representative leaders in a parliament here) is the tool by which we regulate the reality that social difference exists, and needs to exist for us to think at all, and think through our sensual organs’ perceptions healthily with sufficiently free emotions to create in everyday life. This is why Lacan said the relation of the Symbolic to the Real is ignorance (although I will leave it to your imagination why he said the relation of the Imaginary to the Real was hate).

However, back to the phrase ‘Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder’ as social perception, it is for this reason that if the object of your love has only one interest – that is, you who loves he/she/it – it is not necessarily beautiful. Beauty, necessarily is at least trivial. There must be at least two more inputs of interest (even if in modern society, one of these can be a mirror). This is the most basic understanding of the existence of the ‘Other’ in psychoanalysis. Echo lost herself in her pursuit of Narcissus as there was no longer a third interest, once he saw his own reflection. For that we cannot blame her.

The relinquishing of independent thought and benefit dependency

Filed under:Random notes — posted by Schizostroller on December 15, 2019 @ 3:47 pm

With the coming Tory government, let’s deal with an argument about ‘dependency’.

My proposition: “Independent thought comes before independence”

My second proposition: “Benefit dependency is irrelevant with regards the possibility of independent thought, as it is based on a relation to an exploitative system”

If you have watched the film The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, which is about locked in syndrome and a guy with the condition who writes a novel. Locked in syndrome is about as dependent on others as you can get, yet the guy had sufficient independent thought to write a novel.

Capitalism is an exploitative system, where the definition of exploitation is based on the fact the entire labour time of all workers in a business contributes to the entire revenue, however the level of wages are based on competiiton for jobs based on supply and demand. Profits come from the remainder of revenue minus capital costs and business expenses and wages. This goes to the capitalist and is the basis for the definition of exploitation.

To increase proft it is important that wages are as low as possible without affecting productivity too much (although there are issues here – productivity will always be less than optimum).

The case for a welfare state is that if workers wages are too low, then they cannot afford to pay for their disabled (or those with mental health issues) relatives, as due to the human need to care for loved one’s this will eat into labour-time and productivity, thus a national insurance is required.

To improve any distribution of resources requires independent thought. There is however some dependency on things beyond any individual’s control in this world. To think it is ‘just choice’ is tantamount ot some kind of Robinson Crusoeesque solipsism.

This human social ‘dependency’ is however independent of independent thought, without which we would be catatonic, rather than ‘locked in’.

My third proposal is: “A blind faith in ‘benefit dependency’ ideology with regards the exploitative nature of the capitalist system requires a relinquiching of independent thought greater than that necessary to be ‘on benefits’.

Subspace symbolic

Filed under:Random notes — posted by Schizostroller on July 21, 2019 @ 11:14 am

It’s not so much a demand for the sublimation of the Other, it’s more like some kind of desperate insistence on someone else’s passive aquiescence (disguised as humble acceptance) to a sub/dom subspace,
dry edged demiurge, Balian cock flicking,
nu-Protestant Ethic spirit of capitalism in the age of austerity, mindfulness for the coming Asian mode of reproduction (as we head towards the climate change End Times, with increasing inequality), unconsummated orgasm, as a relation to the symbolic, as an externalised exploitative utility, self-interested philautia disguised as the speech of the one true hubristic spokesperson for a holy agape, emotionally and behaviourally disciplined social order, as a catharsis for the failure of a narcissitic, virtue signalling performance as a ‘good person’ who lives for their faith.

What do you know?

Filed under:Random notes — posted by Schizostroller on July 12, 2019 @ 3:43 pm

Someone said to me “If you know so much about mental health, how come you are still living at the state’s expense”

I tried saying, just because you are a cancer specialist doesn’t mean you won’t get cancer.

But that was ‘too biological’ an analogy

I tried explaining that ironically what i know explains more about how come not just me, but a lot of people are not just still at the state’s expense, but need to be, rather than any magical voluntarist self-help cure.

But it wasn’t enterpreneurial, hard work of personal recovery enough a ‘story’ for him.

So i said ‘it’s like in business… it’s not what you know, it’s who you know’

The traumatic power struggle withing mental health

Filed under:Random notes — posted by Schizostroller on June 25, 2019 @ 6:24 am

An article I contributed to for the Morning Star

“ONE of the most vitriolic power struggles between professional groups is happening now and goes to the very essence of what is, or is not, mental illness.

Squaring off against each other are those who believe in a biomedical or genetic basis to mental illness (in the main, psychiatrists) and those who believe mental illness is a natural response to a threat or trauma (mainly psychologists).

At the root of it, is the battle between professions for legitimacy. Who should be controlling the narrative and who should be informing policy? Yet forgotten are the service users who are most affected by such policy arguments at this level.

The result is a confused message about mental health. For all the campaigns to reduce stigma for those with a mental illness, there is a significant crowd of voices rubbishing the very idea of mental illness, whether it is biological or from trauma

continue reading:

Kerplunk assemblages and unrecovery

Filed under:Random notes — posted by Schizostroller on June 21, 2019 @ 7:47 am

Some unrecovery analogy imagery:

We have all played Kerplunk I hope. But as a recap there is a tube with holes, sticks are crisscrossed holding up some balls, and the trick is to remove the sticks without all the balls falling.

Our mental health is like a game of Kerplunk, and our issues are a combination of the balls and sticks. ‘Recovery’ is the ability to remove the sticks without the balls falling. As a slight adaptation to this analogy some of the balls can be removed by moving sticks, and ‘life’ adds balls all the time. The sticks are ‘safety’ adaptations that stop all the balls falling at once.

This game of Kerplunk is mostly played by us alone (in our own minds), so in this analogy the game is played in a room on your own. But we can always hear people telling us which sticks we ‘should’ remove, whilst we are sitting there looking at the problem, even though these people are not in the room with us. Government policy also demands we remove sticks, and moreover can add balls (as can other aspects of life), as well as remove sticks if we don’t keep an eye on them.

Unrecovery practices are an ad hoc practice, that is a temporary solution to keep control of our own Kerplunk game, knowing that a wrong move can send all the balls falling. ‘Bad’ recovery is procrustean and insists on this or that stick must be removed, and then blames you when the balls fall. ‘Good’ Recovery, and other therapeutic practices, listens to your knowledge of what you can see of the game, and merely supports you with your autonomy whilst you play the game. This latter ideal however from our observation seems to be at odds with current government policy and market/ capitalist needs, as it doesn’t meet the outcomes measures of outside forces.

For those who don’t know the term, that I have added some changes to the games with sticks and balls being added and removed whilst you play, like a Heath Robinson machine, is what is called an assemblage. Unrecovery is an ad hoc practice with which to deal with such an assemblage.

Jumpshadow Disease

Filed under:Random notes — posted by Schizostroller on April 23, 2019 @ 8:04 am

If there is anything it is permitted to do it is to jump up and down on your own shadow in the sun going ‘stupid fucking shadow’.

It may well be pointless but…

To disapprove of it and attempt to stop it is a sure sign of authoritarian tendencies and even more pointless.

The lie

Filed under:Random notes — posted by Schizostroller on @ 7:10 am

That time when you found the dead body of the wanted killer in the road and pretended you had done it.

It was the only way you could claim any power and fame in this small town.

The media frenzy may have seemed worth it, but after it died down you were just left with the lie.

next page