Black Magic in Western Medicine
John Jones
of the practitioners of this Magic both traditionally, and today in
Western health, is to gain power by subtly diminishing the autonomy, or
sense of identity, of others. The term "medical gaze" was coined by
French philosopher and critic, Michel Foucault to denote the
dehumanizing medical separation of the patient's body from the patient's
person (identity).
In every visit to a western doctor we succumb to the "medical gaze", a
dangerous move in Black Magic that is potentially disastrous for some.
What are the doctor's Black Magic techniques? Philosophically, as a
rational materialist the doctor employs a material reductionism.
For example, a doctor will talk about......
1. Bereavement "reaction"
2. Panic "attack"
3. Nervous "breakdown"
4. Personality "disorder"
5. "Clinical" depression
Here, above, we see the Doctor modelling feelings, experiences and
emotions on the model of physical pain, and renaming them all as symptoms.
It is important to reject any attempt (the "medical gaze") that the
doctor makes on our autonomy. This means rejecting any possible
diagnosis that convinces us to model our feelings on the model of pain.
If we succumb, we could find ourselves moving around a medicated
twilight/alternative world, stigmatised, out of work, physically ill, or
even subject to suicidal and murderous thoughts, alien to our nature.
Arturo Magidin
> It is important to reject any attempt (the "medical gaze") that the
> doctor makes on our autonomy. This means rejecting any possible
> diagnosis that convinces us to model our feelings on the model of pain.
I reject your diagnosis and your prescription as an attempt on my
autonomy.
I do sincerely hope, however, that if you come down with illness you
immediately reject any and all "attempts" on "your autonomy."
--
Arturo Magidin
Dänk 1010011010
> Black Magic is integral to the practice of all Western medicine. The aim
> of the practitioners of this Magic both traditionally, and today in
> Western health, is to gain power by subtly diminishing the autonomy, or
> sense of identity, of others. The term "medical gaze" was coined by
> French philosopher and critic, Michel Foucault to denote the
> dehumanizing medical separation of the patient's body from the patient's
> person (identity).
Black magic could be used in medicine if it could be proven effective
in controlled scientific experiments. Science can prove if something
works, even if how it works remains unknown.
> What are the doctor's Black Magic techniques? Philosophically, as a
> rational materialist the doctor employs a material reductionism.
> For example, a doctor will talk about......
>
> 1. Bereavement "reaction"
> 2. Panic "attack"
> 3. Nervous "breakdown"
> 4. Personality "disorder"
> 5. "Clinical" depression
You are confusing scientific medicine with the pseudoscience of
psychology. Just because some quack named Phil prefixes his name with
"Dr." doesn't mean he is a real medical doctor.
Psychology is indeed like black magic, though probably closer to
astrology in that it attempts to project a scientific image. The
higher education that psychologists receive does not make them
credible, though, any more than the ability of astrologers to
accurately calculate the positions of planets means they can predict
the future.
Like astrologers, psychologists have a special ability to 'read'
people and convince them that they can read minds or predict the
future by knowing what they want to hear, and by telling them just
enough to keep them coming back for another paid session.
For all their supposed ability to read minds or predict the future,
you will never see a psychologist or astrologer who takes advantage of
his supernatural powers for personal financial gain (e.g., selling
stock based on knowing whether a CEO is lying about sales figures, or
predicting tomorrow's lottery numbers), and their income is derived
solely from a steady stream of gullible clients and book sales.
Drafterman
You prove the necessity of making the medical experience impersonal
(what you inaccurately call "dehumanizing").
You prove this by conflating the names of the above medical conditions
with the mundane emotions used in their names. Indeed, they have
little to do with the emotional states as commonly perceived by
healthy individuals yet that doesn't stop you clinging the flimsy word
associations to promote some sort of conspiracy theory.
Outside of this, while personal attachment to a patient may benefit
the patient, it can also harm the patient as it allows for emotional
attachments to interfer with what should be an intellectual process.
In addition, patients with similarly detrimental conditions would
suffer as people would naturally work harder to help a person they
have an emotional attachment to than ones they don't.
Perhaps some people out there have the strength of will to not do this
while still getting emotionally involved, but on the whole, we're bad
at doing that. Thus, it's in everyone's best interest to separate the
disease from the patient.
John Jones
Did you not get my argument? I am arguing that that clinical terms are a
reduction of feelings to symptoms, which entails modelling feelings on
the model of pain.
> Indeed, they have
> little to do with the emotional states as commonly perceived by
> healthy individuals yet that doesn't stop you clinging the flimsy word
> associations to promote some sort of conspiracy theory.
They are terms that the doctor uses. My argument is that these terms
teach the patient to disown their own autonomy and feelings and to
regard them as being physically controlled, and to be directed by the
doctor.
> Outside of this, while personal attachment to a patient may benefit
> the patient, it can also harm the patient as it allows for emotional
> attachments to interfer with what should be an intellectual process.
> In addition, patients with similarly detrimental conditions would
> suffer as people would naturally work harder to help a person they
> have an emotional attachment to than ones they don't.
I was not talking about emotional attachment between patient and doctor
at all. I was talking about the technique of dehumanization by the
clinical elimination of feelings and personal autonomy, and their
replacement with physical processes, symptoms, and control by other
agencies.
> Perhaps some people out there have the strength of will to not do this
> while still getting emotionally involved, but on the whole, we're bad
> at doing that. Thus, it's in everyone's best interest to separate the
> disease from the patient.
I wasn't referring to that.
Drafterman
Yes, and did you get my response, where I explained that the use of
the feelings in those terms is NOT a reference to the mundane
expression of those emotions?
>
> > Indeed, they have
> > little to do with the emotional states as commonly perceived by
> > healthy individuals yet that doesn't stop you clinging the flimsy word
> > associations to promote some sort of conspiracy theory.
>
> They are terms that the doctor uses. My argument is that these terms
> teach the patient to disown their own autonomy and feelings and to
> regard them as being physically controlled, and to be directed by the
> doctor.
You are conflating words.
>
> > Outside of this, while personal attachment to a patient may benefit
> > the patient, it can also harm the patient as it allows for emotional
> > attachments to interfer with what should be an intellectual process.
> > In addition, patients with similarly detrimental conditions would
> > suffer as people would naturally work harder to help a person they
> > have an emotional attachment to than ones they don't.
>
> I was not talking about emotional attachment between patient and doctor
> at all. I was talking about the technique of dehumanization by the
> clinical elimination of feelings and personal autonomy, and their
> replacement with physical processes, symptoms, and control by other
> agencies.
>
> > Perhaps some people out there have the strength of will to not do this
> > while still getting emotionally involved, but on the whole, we're bad
> > at doing that. Thus, it's in everyone's best interest to separate the
> > disease from the patient.
>
> I wasn't referring to that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
philosophy
You sound like a Christian - twisting the meaning of words for your
own
ends. Look at the link below and tell me which is black magic?
Your twist on words about doctors or:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children-denounce_n_324943.html
philosophy
And what is your summation of a psychiatrist?
philosophy
What is wrong with this?
You put an average Jo Blow into a doctor's surgery. He's in pain.
He can relate to what the Doctor is saying. There is nothing
wrong with this approach. For too long the average person has
had to put up with medical jingoism. Now you are complaining
about Doctors actually trying to communicate. The poor sods
can't win with people like you around.
I hope you never need a doctor. In fact, come to think of it, you
would be a hypocrite to even go to one.
John Jones
What else could they mean?!
>>> Indeed, they have
>>> little to do with the emotional states as commonly perceived by
>>> healthy individuals
Yet a 'clinical' judgement is pronounced precisely on those "states".
>>> yet that doesn't stop you clinging the flimsy word
>>> associations to promote some sort of conspiracy theory.
>> They are terms that the doctor uses.
... please, honestly, do you think that these terms used clinically are
somehow "different". I analysed that.
>> My argument is that these terms
>> teach the patient to disown their own autonomy and feelings and to
>> regard them as being physically controlled, and to be directed by the
>> doctor.
>
> You are conflating words.
No, the conflation is the clinical judgement that conflates feelings
with pain.
John Jones
With what?
> You put an average Jo Blow into a doctor's surgery. He's in pain.
> He can relate to what the Doctor is saying. There is nothing
> wrong with this approach.
Yes, I'm not disagreeing.
> For too long the average person has
> had to put up with medical jingoism. Now you are complaining
> about Doctors actually trying to communicate.
You mean there can be something wrong with people that only the doctor
notices?
John Jones
I'm not twisting words. I'm using the words the doctor uses. The twist
is in front of you. Not in in some half-read comic.
TruthSlave
> Black Magic is integral to the practice of all Western medicine. The aim
> of the practitioners of this Magic both traditionally, and today in
> Western health, is to gain power by subtly diminishing the autonomy, or
> sense of identity, of others. The term "medical gaze" was coined by
> French philosopher and critic, Michel Foucault to denote the
> dehumanizing medical separation of the patient's body from the patient's
> person (identity).
>
> In every visit to a western doctor we succumb to the "medical gaze", a
> dangerous move in Black Magic that is potentially disastrous for some.
>
> What are the doctor's Black Magic techniques? Philosophically, as a
> rational materialist the doctor employs a material reductionism.
> For example, a doctor will talk about......
>
> 1. Bereavement "reaction"
> 2. Panic "attack"
> 3. Nervous "breakdown"
> 4. Personality "disorder"
> 5. "Clinical" depression
>
The doctor by definition exist to manage pain. His world will
necessarily be seen in terms of what he does best. How can you
critique him for seeing in terms of these degrees of pain and
discomfort? Is there any other way to chart feelings.
One could take this point further to describe other professions
and the language which supports their function. Each sees what
he needs to see, before cajoling the rest to see the same.
So, is there another profession to see feeling in other terms?
If so what would this profession practice as their modus operandi?
Degrees of comfort. Now here's a thought. The comedienne, if he
were taken seriously, would be one candidate. In his world,
everything is a joke. In his company you could learn to laugh
at anything.
BTW - does anyone know any good jokes about comedians, or could
it be there are somethings you don't joke about?)
TruthSlave
> the model of pain.
>
>> Indeed, they have
>> little to do with the emotional states as commonly perceived by
>> healthy individuals yet that doesn't stop you clinging the flimsy word
>> associations to promote some sort of conspiracy theory.
>
> They are terms that the doctor uses. My argument is that these terms
> teach the patient to disown their own autonomy and feelings and to
> regard them as being physically controlled, and to be directed by the
> doctor.
>
>> Outside of this, while personal attachment to a patient may benefit
>> the patient, it can also harm the patient as it allows for emotional
>> In addition, patients with similarly detrimental conditions would
>> suffer as people would naturally work harder to help a person they
>> have an emotional attachment to than ones they don't.
>
> I was not talking about emotional attachment between patient and doctor
> at all. I was talking about the technique of dehumanization by the
> clinical elimination of feelings and personal autonomy, and their
> replacement with physical processes, symptoms, and control by other
> agencies.
I begin to see your point, only i would say most people want
answers for what ills them. It is not always enough to say the
individual is the source of his feelings. Its not enough to say
the individual's attachments to the world, his dependency on
the culture, is the source of what now manifest itself as these
conflicting feelings. One doesn't talk of the individual's
life long associations to experience and state as the source of
what ills him. Instead we turn to the studied professional in
the hope their understanding aides our understanding.
They are suppose help us with what would otherwise be disconcerting
feelings, without these labels they would all lumped together in
the same category of unknowns.
The examples you've posted, might instead of pain, be described
by the functional regions of the brain affected, or the hormones
which come into play with those symptoms, however this would leave
the lay person no better for the explanation. What one sees instead
is a category of study, labels which declare the doctor to be a
seeker after pain. The real question then is how should he convey
his knowledge to the impatient. ;)