Američki lekarski priručnik: Ako je neko protiv sistema on je poremećen i treba ga lečiti

piše: Ljiljana Tatic

Psihijatrijska industrija u SAD-u dovela je u sumnju  „pojavu“ nekonvencionalnog načina razmišljanja i u skladu sa tom sumnjom pozurila da definise novu bolest:

Oppositional Defiant Disorder ili skraceno ODD

Američko udruzenje psihijatara smatra za mentalni poremećaj svako razmišljanje koje stavlja sumnju na pitanja dominantne paradigme, koja drži javnost u skladu sa opšteprihvaćenom matricom ponašanja.

Ako pojedinac osloboditi svoj um od okvira  koje je prihvatilo javno mnenje, ako je budan i postavljavlja pitanja, ako sumnja u ispravnost sistema, ako želi da se isključi iz matrice (čitaj : ustanovljenih pravila-) – to je vrsta  mentalne bolesti, navodi se u najnovijem izdanju Dijagnostičkog i statističkog Priručnika za duševne poremećaje Američke psihijatrijske asocijacije.

Ovaj prirručnik definiše novu bolest koja se se zove „Opozicijski prkosni poremećaj“ (Oppositional Defiant Disorder ODD – akronim na engleskom), a opisuje kao „dosledni obrazac ponašanja – neposlšnosti, neprijateljstva i prkosa“ što predstavlja simptome koji uključuju neposlušnost  i prkos posebno prema autoritetu, te stav u kojem pojedinac ima tendenciju da se ljuti, da se buni i ne slaže te da se ponaša uznemireno i/ili izazivački.

Ovaj priručnik se obavezno koristi od strane lekara kada oni treba da utvrde postojanje duševne bolesti. Svako novo izdanje ovog priručnika medjutim, značajno povećava broj takozvanih „duševnih bolesti“. Dakle, kontroverzne reči kojima je opisano da se zapravo radi o ljudima sa problemima mentalnog zdravlja koje se nalaze u priručniku, pokazuju da  postaje sve  teže biti mentalno zdrav. Lekari psihijatri medjutim  kažu da je to dobro , jer oni sada mogu lakše, bez mnogo dileme, da identifikuju poremecaj ponašanja, a to znači da oni sada mogu da leče više ljudi i jednostavnije da ih zadržavaju u mentalnim ustanovama.

U novim uputstvima, koja su nedavno izašla, dodati su mnogi novi oblici mentalnih bolesti koji će u skladu sa namerom njihovih kreatora, osnažiti psihijatre da prošire granice svog delovanja. U stvari, oni već imaju zakonsko pravo da proglase za „psihički bolesnog“ koga god žele. I nije daleko dan kada će biti vrlo teško dokazati da je neko , koga su oni označili kao bolesnog, zapravo zdrav. Novo uputstvo je definisalo kao bolest i aroganciju, narcizam i -kreativnost koja izlazi izvan osrednjosti-, cinizam i antisocijalno ponašanje. U prošlosti su to bile samo karakterne osobine ličnosti, ali sada su bolesti koje ce biti tretirane.

Tokom poslednjih 50 godina 130 službeno priznatih mentalnih bolesti povećano je na 357, od kojih se mnogi opisani pojavni oblici pojavljuju kod dece kao posledica primljenih velikih doza vakcina i/ili lekova zbog prvobitno ustanovljenih „psihičkih poremecaja“ (na primer najcesće definisan poremećaj kod dece je  HIPERAKTIVNOST) i lečenih raznim lekovima za vraćanje u „normalu“.

Sve će teže biti da pojedinac dokaže da je zdrav. Moć prinudnog „lečenja“ će postati sve jača i jača …

Jos pre tridesetak godina, kada je ova vrsta manipulacije, bila tek u zacetku i ogranicena na podrucje Amerike, dosla mi je do ruku neobicna knjiga doktora Ronald David Lainga, Podeljeno ja, politika dozivljaja , u kojoj je otvorio pitanje granica izmedju „normalnog“ i „nenormalnog“. On je jos tada, obracajuci se intelektualnoj eliti i kreatorima americkih zakona i pravilnika, ali i svim slobodoumnim gradjanima sveta, rekao:

„Jedna od karakteristika nase kulture mislim da je, ono sto bih ja nazvao, PSIHOFOBIJA. Mi smo psihofobicni, bojimo se svojih sopstvenih umova, svoje sopstvene psihe. Ne postoji knjiga u opticaju koja je odredjenija u vezi ovoga od DSM3 (dijagnosticki i statisticki prirucnik americke psihijatrijske asocijacije) koja je i zbirka kriterijuma koji odredjuju mentalne poremecaje. U prirucniku su nabrojana svakojaka neobicna poimanja koje dozivimo, kao KRITERIJUM. Vidovitost, telepatija, da drugi mogu da osete moja osecanja, kad ja mogu da osetim prisustvo mrtve osobe u sobi samnom, koja nije tamo.. Na primer : Dozvoljeno je osecati to tri nedelje posto vam je majka umrla a posle tog vremena to osecanje POSTAJE KRITERIJUM MENTALNOG POREMECAJA. Ono sto se izgleda u tom prirucniku nudi je masovno homogenizovanje iskustva; tu su sva iskustva ista u isto vreme. Nikom nece biti dozvoljeno da iskusi bilo sta drugacije, razlicito od bilo kog drugog. Nije dozvoljeno videti nebo SIVO ako ga drugi ljudi vide PLAVO. To se u prirucniku odnosi na promene u poimanju kao kriterijum za poremecaj licnosti. Sirom sveta, koliko ja mogu da vidim, kriterijumi mentalnih poremecaja, su ubicajejeni izraz, uobicajenog ljudskog srca i duse. Mi smo u procesu, ja mislim, “kultivisananja zdravlja”. Mi smo u procesu iskljucivanja kulturom….“

 

***

Jednostavno je manipulisati nečijom ‘stvarnošću’. Sada ubaci u ovu priču mikro ili nano čip. Vidi o tome u clanku: “’NA ZAPADU NISTA NOVO: Charles Whitman se 1966. popeo na toranj univerziteta u Texasu i 90 minuta pucao na sve što se kretalo. Ubio je 14, ranio 38 osoba“’

• http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_David_Laing

Ronald David Laing

The requirement of the present, the failure of the past, is the same: to provide a thoroughly self-conscious and self-critical human account of man.

Ronald David Laing (October 7, 1927 – August 23, 1989) was a Scottish psychiatrist who wrote extensively on mental illness and particularly the experience of psychosis.

Contents 1 Sourced 1.1 The Divided Self (1960) 1.2 The Politics of Experience (1967) 1.3 Knots (1970) 2 Disputed 3 Quotes about Laing 4 External links

Sourced

The Divided Self (1960)

The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness

• Existential phenomenology attempts to characterize the nature of a person’s experience of his world and himself. It is not so much an attempt to describe particular objects of his experience as to set all particular experiences within the context of his whole being-in-his-world. The mad things said and done by the schizophrenic will remain essentially a closed book if one does not understand their existential context. In describing one way of going mad, I shall try to show that there is a comprehensible transition from the sane schizoid way of being-in-the-world to a psychotic way of being-in-the-world. Although retaining the terms schizoid and schizophrenic for the sane and psychotic positions respectively, I shall not, of course, be using these terms in their usual clinical psychiatric frame of reference, but phenomenologically and existentially.
  • Ch. 1 : The existential-phenomenological foundations for a science of persons

The Politics of Experience (1967)

We are all murderers and prostitutes — no matter to what culture, society, class, nation, we belong, no matter how normal, moral, or mature we take ourselves to be.

Humanity is estranged from its authentic possibilities.

We can see other people’s behaviour, but not their experience.

Psychology is the logos of experience. Psychology is the structure of the evidence, and hence psychology is the science of sciences.

Society highly values its normal man. It educates children to lose themselves and to become absurd, and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years.

We are effectively destroying ourselves by violence masquerading as love.

• Few books today are forgivable. Black on canvas, silence on the screen, an empty white sheet of paper are perhaps feasible. There is little conjunction of truth and social „reality“. Around us are pseudo-events, to which we adjust with a false consciousness adapted to see these events as true and real, and even as beautiful. In the society of men the truth resides now less in what things are than in what they are not. Our social realities are so ugly if seen in the light of exiled truth, and beauty is almost no longer possible if it is not a lie. What is to be done? We who are still half alive, living in the often fibrillating heartland of a senescent capitalism — can we do more than reflect the decay around and within us? Can we do more than sing our sad and bitter songs of disillusion and defeat? The requirement of the present, the failure of the past, is the same: to provide a thoroughly self-conscious and self-critical human account of man.
  • p. 1 of Introduction

• We live in a moment of history where change is so speeded up that we begin to see the present only when it is already disappearing.
  • p. 1 of Introduction

• We are all murderers and prostitutes — no matter to what culture, society, class, nation, we belong, no matter how normal, moral, or mature we take ourselves to be.
  Humanity is estranged from its authentic possibilities. This basic vision prevents us from taking any unequivocal view of the sanity of common sense, or of the madness of the so-called madman. … Our alientation goes to the roots. The realisation of this is the essential springboard for any serious reflection on any aspect of present inter-human life.
  • p. 2 of Introduction

• Alienation as our present destiny is achieved only by outrageous violence perpetrated by human beings on human beings.
  • p. 3 of Introduction

• Even facts become fictions without adequate ways of seeing „the facts“. We do not need theories so much as the experience that is the source of the theory. We are not satisfied with faith, in the sense of an implausible hypothesis irrationally held: we demand to experience the „evidence“.
  We can see other people’s behaviour, but not their experience. This has led some people to insist that psychology has nothing to do with the other person’s experience, but only with his behaviour.
  The other person’s behaviour is an experience of mine. My behaviour is an experience of the other. The task of social phenomenology is to relate my experience of the other’s behaviour to the other’s experience of my behaviour. Its study is the relation between experience and experience: its true field is inter-experience.
  • Ch. 1 : Experience as evidence

• I see you, and you see me. I experience you, and you experience me. I see your behaviour. You see my behaviour. But I do not and never have and never will see your experience of me. Just as you cannot „see“ my experience of you. My experience of you is not „inside“ me. It is simply you, as I experience you. And I do not experience you as inside me. Similarly, I take it that you do not experience me as inside you.
  „My experience of you“ is just another form of words for „you-as-l-experience-you“, and „your experience of me“ equals „me-as-you-experience-me“. Your experience of me is not inside you and my experience of you is not inside me, but your experience of me is invisible to me and my experience of you is invisible to you.
  • Ch. 1 : Experience as evidence

• I cannot experience your experience. You cannot experience my experience. We are both invisible men. All men are invisible to one another. Experience used to be called The Soul. Experience as invisibility of man to man is at the same time more evident than anything. Only experience is evident. Experience is the only evidence. Psychology is the logos of experience. Psychology is the structure of the evidence, and hence psychology is the science of sciences.
  • Ch. 1 : Experience as evidence

• Social phenomenology is the science of my own and of others’ experience. It is concerned with the relation between my experience of you and your experience of me. That is, with inter-experience. It is concerned with your behaviour and my behaviour as I experience it, and your and my behaviour as you experience it.
  • Ch. 1 : Experience as evidence

• Society highly values its normal man. It educates children to lose themselves and to become absurd, and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years.
  • p. 28

• Long before a thermonuclear war can come about, we have had to lay waste our own sanity. We begin with the children. It is imperative to catch them in time. Without the most thorough and rapid brainwashing their dirty minds would see through our dirty tricks. Children are not yet fools, but we shall turn them into imbeciles like ourselves, with high I.Q.s if possible.
  From the moment of birth, when the Stone Age baby confronts the twentieth-century mother, the baby is subjected to these forces of violence, called love, as its mother and father, and their parents and their parents before them, have been. These forces are mainly concerned with destroying most of its potentialities, and on the whole this enterprise is successful.
  • p. 58

• We are effectively destroying ourselves by violence masquerading as love. I am a specialist, God help me, in events in inner space and time, in experiences called thoughts, images, reveries, dreams, visions, hallucinations, dreams of memories, memories of dreams, memories of visions, dreams of hallucinations, refractions of refractions of refractions of that original Alpha and Omega of experience and reality, that Reality on whose repression, denial, splitting, projection, falsification, and general desecration and profanation our civilisation as much as anything is based.
  • p. 58

• A child born today in the United Kingdom stands a ten times greater chance of being admitted to a mental hospital than to a university … This can be taken as an indication that we are driving our children mad more effectively than we are genuinely educating them. Perhaps it is our way of educating them that is driving them mad.
  • p. 104

• There is no such „condition“ as „schizophrenia,“ but the label is a social fact and the social fact a political event.
  • p. 121

Knots (1970)

I am doing it
the it I am doing is
the I that is doing it

one sees that the gate one went through
was the self that went through it
no one went through a gate
there was no gate to go through
no one ever found a gate
no one ever realized there was never a gate

Page numbers refer to the April 1972 Vintage Books edition (New York: Random House), ISBN 0394717767

• I’m ridiculous to feel ridiculous when I’m not.
  You must
  be laughing at me
  for feeling you are laughing at me
  if you are not laughing at me.
  • §2, p. 22

• If I don’t know I don’t know
  I think I know
  If I don’t know I know
  I think I don’t know
  • §3, p. 55

• I am doing it
  the it I am doing is
  the I that is doing it
  the I that is doing it is
  the it I am doing
  it is doing the I that am doing it
  I am being done by the it I am doing
  it is doing it
  • §5, p. 84

• Before one goes through the gate
  one may not be aware there is a gate
  One may think there is a gate to go through
  and look a long time for it
  without finding it
  One may find it and
  it may not open
  If it opens one may be through it
  As one goes through it
  one sees that the gate one went through
  was the self that went through it
  no one went through a gate
  there was no gate to go through
  no one ever found a gate
  no one ever realized there was never a gate
  • „Although innumerable beings have been led to Nirvana no being has been led to Nirvana“, §5, p. 85

Disputed

• Insanity — a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world.
  • As quoted in Wisdom for the Soul : Five Millennia of Prescriptions for Spiritual Healing (2006) by Larry Chang, p. 412; this might be a paraphrase, as the earliest occurrence of this phrase thus far located is in the form: „Ronald David Laing has shocked many people when he suggested in 1972 that insanity can be a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world.“ in Studii de literatură română și comparată (1984), by The Faculty of Philology-History at Universitatea din Timișoara. A clear citation to Laing’s own work has not yet been found.

Quotes about Laing

• Laing was profoundly disenchanted with most analysts’ closed-minded and dogmatic world-views, and their derogatory attitude toward psychotics. The Freudians and Kleinians in London, for their part, did not trust Laing because he committed the cardinal sin of taking Jung‘s notion of metanoia seriously. This was not yet evident in 1960, when he published The Divided Self. But it was vividly apparent in The Politics of Experience, published in 1967.
  • Daniel Burston, in „R. D. Laing and The Politics of Diagnosis“ in Janus Head (Spring 2001)

• Fed up with the limelight, in 1970, Laing left for India and Ceylon, where he studied Buddhist mediation and Shiviite Yoga for 18 months. He returned a changed man. Unlike his former, angrier, radical self, the new R.D. Laing now enjoined a kind of gentle, Buddhist austerity as the best path to liberation, and expressed a great skepticism about the left’s agenda and methods. Moreover, he no longer condemned the nuclear family or the use of psychotropic medication as a treatment of last resort, provided these drugs were taken voluntarily, with the patient’s informed consent. He remained categorically opposed to electroshock and involuntary psychiatric treatment, and eager to explore alternatives to psychiatry. But he now rejected the „anti-psychiatry“ label that others had placed on him, and made several conciliatory gestures toward his estranged psychiatric colleagues.
  • Daniel Burston, in „R. D. Laing and The Politics of Diagnosis“ in Janus Head (Spring 2001)

• Many things have changed since The Politics of Experience created such a sensation. The general public isn’t as moved by the plight of these people as they were in Laing’s day. And though Laing was far more effective with people like these than the average clinician in a one-on-one setting, he never developed a workable alternative to the conventional mental hospital. In the absence of such an alternative, people in distress are inclined to rely on the devil they know. Besides, really good psychotherapy is time and labor intensive. It requires a substantial emotional investment from the therapist as well as the patient. It is not cheap and not fast, and in the recent climate of fiscal restraint we want a quick fix: something clean and cost-effective, not messy and time consuming.
  • Daniel Burston, in „R. D. Laing and The Politics of Diagnosis“ in Janus Head (Spring 2001)

• Laing argued that labeling the individual often has little to do with accurate assessment of the patient’s real problems, and that the remedial interventions mandated by a specific diagnosis often serve complex social functions by equilibrating extant social-systems, i.e. maintaining the status quo. In short, clinicians frequently locate the cause of the disturbance in individuals to divert attention from the processes that actually engendered their disturbed behavior. If they did not, they would often construe the „signs and symptoms“ of these diagnostic entities as intelligible responses to what Laing termed „unlivable situations“ — ones which the patient can neither understand, nor tolerate, nor change effectively.
  • Daniel Burston, in „R. D. Laing and The Politics of Diagnosis“ in Janus Head (Spring 2001)

• Laing had an aching addiction to fame and celebrity and it unquestionably damaged his reputation. … His need for attention was a lifelong problem and robbed his work of credibility, particularly after he had a serious midlife crisis of creativity and felt he had run out of things to say. He became a tragic figure, his behaviour erratic and self-destructive. There were flashes of the old brilliance, but much of his later output was of questionable value. Frankly, it was dreck.
  • Daniel Burston, a professor of psychology at Duquesne University, as quoted in „RD Laing: The Abominable Family Man“ in The Sunday Times (12 April 2009)

• His most original contribution, the source of his inspiration, what he wrote about and where he wrote from, was the time that he spent listening to mad people. Before Ronnie, few psychiatrists, if any, spoke with such a good ear for madness. There were others including Freud, Jung, Fromm-Reichman and Rosen, who attempted in some way to decode mad-speak, but Ronnie „hung out“ with mad people. He was first of all a guy who, with people who were seen as mad, entered into a kind of a friendship; he created space that hadn’t before opened up, between himself and the „mad.“ Also he was very plastic and mimetic, so he could imitate and get into other people’s moods, thoughts, language, and world, including those of so-called „mad“ people. And he was able to bring back and speak of what it was like to be „mad“ (more or less). This gave „mad“ people an enormous sense of relief. Someone heard them. They were not alone. Madness was not unreason, a total unintelligibility, a total difference between the sane and the insane. Ronnie showed that we’re all in it together. There was not an unbridgeable gulf between sanity and madness: rather there is a continuum. Mad people felt that „this guy really understands what I’m going through.“ This proved extremely helpful for people who thought they were going mad, or who were told they were mad.
  • Steven Gans, in „Remembering Ronnie“ in Janus Head (Spring 2001)

• Being the son of RD Laing was neither amazing nor enlightening …For most of the time it was a crock of shit.
  • Adrian Laing, as quoted in „RD Laing: The Abominable Family Man“ in The Sunday Times (12 April 2009)

• The square root of nothing.
  • An expression to describe him, used by Anne Hearne Laing, his ex-wife, as quoted in „RD Laing: The Abominable Family Man“ in The Sunday Times (12 April 2009)

• There was a lot of violence when we were young — vicious, nasty stuff — and at times it certainly felt an unsafe place to be. It was an awful culture shock when my parents separated, leaving our schools and friends in London and arriving in Glasgow in the early 1960s, which then had a frightening reputation for gang violence. We had occasional visits from my father which always ended in rows. I felt hurt, angry and confused he couldn’t be there for us.
  I have sat in on sessions with my father while he was working with clients and experienced his genius as a man who could relate to another human’s pain and suffering. There seems to me to be a huge void and contradiction between RD Laing the psychiatrist and Ronnie Laing the father. There was something he was constantly searching for within himself and it tortured him.
  • His eldest daughter, Karen, as quoted in „RD Laing: The Abominable Family Man“ in The Sunday Times (12 April 2009)

• We’ve got too many problems for him. … He can solve everybody else’s, but not ours.
  • Susan Laing, his second eldest daughter, in a 1974 feature on the children of celebrities, as quoted in „RD Laing: The Abominable Family Man“ in The Sunday Times (12 April 2009)

• Ronnie was brilliant, a complete original, but he desperately overdid the drugs and drink.
  • Sally Vincent, a lover, as quoted in „RD Laing: The Abominable Family Man“ in The Sunday Times (12 April 2009)

External links

Wikipedia has an article about:

Ronald David Laing

• The International R.D. Laing Institute (Switzerland)
• The Society for Laingian Studies
  • Biography at The Society for Laingian Studies
• „Special Issue : The Legacy of R. D. Laing“. Janus Head (Spring 2001), edited by Daniel Burston
• The Philadelphia Association
• „RD Laing: The Abominable Family Man“ in The Sunday Times (12 April 2009)
• Laing’s Connection with Family Therapy