For consideration...
Peter H. Coffin
an obsession with health eating as a "serious psychological
condition"[1]. I'm seeing this as a particularly unenjoyable form of
gluttony and a gateway to pride. Especially the part about 'Their
dietary restrictions commonly cause sufferers to feel proud of their
"virtuous" behaviour'.
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/16/orthorexia-mental-health-eating-disorder
--
Tomorrow is the first day of the rest of your life in a career where, if you
really suck, 100% of your work fails and if you're really good and really
lucky only 99% of it is a complete waste of time. - Hal Bogerd
Jennie Kermode
> Does mental defect obviate sin?
I think it can be difficult to identify sin when one is close
to it. A good measure is to ask: how would I feel about this if somebody
else were doing it? This can help one to see around the boundaries of
one's own mental condition. I think we all have a duty to try and obtain
a wider perspective, so a mental defect might be a mitigating factor but
only inasmuch as one is unable to work around it or must make a
disproportionate effort to do so.
> For example, The Guardian is reporting an obsession with health
> eating as a "serious psychological condition"[1].
'Obsession' is a tricky word, with subtly different meanings
in psychology and in the vernacular. It's difficult to say what is meant
by it here. I think that, by and large (serious trauma aside) we are
responsible for the development of our obsessions, but it's harder to
say to what extent we are responsible for maintaining them, as with
addictions. Thus one might be able to locate a clear sin in the past,
but it's harder to say to what extent any given obsessed person
continues to sin - volition must be a key element.
> I'm seeing this as a particularly unenjoyable form of
> gluttony and a gateway to pride.
Yes, I'm with you on that. There's a bigger question, though,
isn't there? Does wider society bear some responsibility for our sins if
it celebrates them and pushes them at us, denying their sinful nature?
If so, does this mitigate our individual responsibility? It's back to
the old question of whether or not we should be expected to know right
from wrong by nature if nothing in our nurture has prepared us to
distinguish them.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode
jen...@innocent.com
www.jenniekermode.com
Peter H. Coffin
> On 2009-08-18, Peter H. Coffin <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>
>> Does mental defect obviate sin?
>
> I think it can be difficult to identify sin when one is
> close to it. A good measure is to ask: how would I feel about this
> if somebody else were doing it?
I'm very unsure about this part. There's a lot that's okay to do to
oneself or to have done to oneself that it's very not okay otherwise.
The line between "dentist" and "torturer" is a matter of willingness,
> This can help one to see around the boundaries of one's own mental
> condition. I think we all have a duty to try and obtain a wider
> perspective, so a mental defect might be a mitigating factor but
> only inasmuch as one is unable to work around it or must make a
> disproportionate effort to do so.
We must be very careful about how much "disproportionate" actually is...
>> For example, The Guardian is reporting an obsession with health
>> eating as a "serious psychological condition"[1].
>
> 'Obsession' is a tricky word, with subtly different meanings
> in psychology and in the vernacular. It's difficult to say what is
> meant by it here. I think that, by and large (serious trauma aside)
> we are responsible for the development of our obsessions, but it's
> harder to say to what extent we are responsible for maintaining them,
> as with addictions. Thus one might be able to locate a clear sin in
> the past, but it's harder to say to what extent any given obsessed
> person continues to sin - volition must be a key element.
There's the fun part. As soon as something becomes a "serious
psychological condition", it seems to me to be off the table of things
that one can be innocently overwhelmed by. We're instead into where the
naming of the thing as such grants the knowleges of good and evil and
the afflicted become obligated to attempt recovery. They may not get to
be purely free of gluttony, and may relapse occasionally, but the can't
any longer feel that it's right, normal, healthy and decent to do so.
Which neatly parallels the concept of sin as well: get absolution but
then get help.
>> I'm seeing this as a particularly unenjoyable form of gluttony and a
>> gateway to pride.
>
> Yes, I'm with you on that. There's a bigger question,
> though, isn't there? Does wider society bear some responsibility for
> our sins if it celebrates them and pushes them at us, denying their
> sinful nature?
Once we're playing with this, then wider society becomes the actions
of Satan manifest. While societies can be sinful, they cannot sin.
That's the responsibility of the individual. And while tempting others
to sin may be a sin itself, I'm pretty sure I've never heard anyone
describe failing to prevent others from sinning as s sin. So I don't
think wider society *can* bear any responsibility for sin, it's all on
the individual.
> If so, does this mitigate our individual responsibility? It's back to
> the old question of whether or not we should be expected to know right
> from wrong by nature if nothing in our nurture has prepared us to
> distinguish them.
Well, both church and law tend to start the demarkation at the point
where one can distinguish right from wrong as concepts. Not the actual
act in particular itself, but a general concept. Once that part's been
established, all that *should* be necessary is the presentation that
some thing is *possibly* a sin or a crime (and that presentation can be
implicit in that similar kinds of acts are sins or crimes), then it's
entirely on the individual to *find out* whether that thing is a sin or
crime, and behave appropriately. Crime is usually easier: there's books
that tell what things are crimes and what are not, and I'd venture that
good legal systems include mechanisms to test whether what's in the book
is correct, in both the specific and the general cases, in addition to
testing whether the act meets the description in the book. So, I'd say
that individual can and should be held to be individually responsible
for a general battery of right and wrong, given that they exist within
a society (pretty much any society) and there exists a responsibility
to understand rights and wrongs even if the wrong acts are common. As
a civil example, driving faster than the set speed limit is illegal,
no matter how many people do it, and do it routinely, overwhelming
the police's ability to keep up with enforcement. And therefore, any
individual exceeding the speed limit can be arrested, tried, convicted,
and punished for it. *However*, where a law against an act exists and no
enforcement is done for so long and so entrenchedly that it's entirely
unreasonable to expect that it's forbidden to commit the act, then it
*is* a defense to claim that no effort is made to enforce the law. (Not,
however, simply that one didn't know that the law existed...)
--
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of
zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -Justice Louis D. Brandeis
GryffnStryff
> Does mental defect obviate sin?
It depends.
What is the sin, the mental defect, and the obviation? Sure, then
again, probably not.
Andrew R Stallings
> Does mental defect obviate sin? For example, The Guardian is reporting
> an obsession with health eating as a "serious psychological
> condition"[1]. I'm seeing this as a particularly unenjoyable form of
> gluttony and a gateway to pride. Especially the part about 'Their
> dietary restrictions commonly cause sufferers to feel proud of their
> "virtuous" behaviour'.
Lack of knowledge of what you are doing, of being cognizant of good and
evil, does obviate sin if caused by insanity. Schizophrenics, for
instance, are unable to differentiate reality from what their mind
produces. They cannot be held responsible for what they commit as they
know not true from false, good from evil, godly from deviltry.
Or at least, that's what the priests taught me. :D
--
Regards,
Exiled V.2
"We just scratch on day to day with nothing but matchbooks and sarcasm in
our pockets and all we are waiting for is something worth waiting for."
- Nicole Blackman, "Indictment"
whisky-dave
"Andrew R Stallings" <exil...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h72kbu$ol5$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:09:12 -0500, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>
>> Does mental defect obviate sin? For example, The Guardian is reporting
>> an obsession with health eating as a "serious psychological
>> condition"[1]. I'm seeing this as a particularly unenjoyable form of
>> gluttony and a gateway to pride. Especially the part about 'Their
>> dietary restrictions commonly cause sufferers to feel proud of their
>> "virtuous" behaviour'.
>
> Lack of knowledge of what you are doing, of being cognizant of good and
> evil, does obviate sin if caused by insanity. Schizophrenics, for
> instance, are unable to differentiate reality from what their mind
> produces. They cannot be held responsible for what they commit as they
> know not true from false, good from evil, godly from deviltry.
>
> Or at least, that's what the priests taught me. :D
Yes but were your trousers neatly folded over your left or
right arm while being taught. ;-)
Peter H. Coffin
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:09:12 -0500, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>
>> Does mental defect obviate sin? For example, The Guardian is reporting
>> an obsession with health eating as a "serious psychological
>> condition"[1]. I'm seeing this as a particularly unenjoyable form of
>> gluttony and a gateway to pride. Especially the part about 'Their
>> dietary restrictions commonly cause sufferers to feel proud of their
>> "virtuous" behaviour'.
>
> Lack of knowledge of what you are doing, of being cognizant of good and
> evil, does obviate sin if caused by insanity. Schizophrenics, for
> instance, are unable to differentiate reality from what their mind
> produces. They cannot be held responsible for what they commit as they
> know not true from false, good from evil, godly from deviltry.
>
> Or at least, that's what the priests taught me. :D
I was mostly thinking of various and sundry diagnosable compulsions. For
example, a kleptomaniac can pile up a ton of "shall not steal"
incidents, more than can possibly be individually absolved.
--
"Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food
groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar, and fat."
-Alex Levine
Kaos
<hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:22:55 +0000 (UTC), Andrew R Stallings wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:09:12 -0500, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>>
>>> Does mental defect obviate sin? For example, The Guardian is reporting
>>> an obsession with health eating as a "serious psychological
>>> condition"[1]. I'm seeing this as a particularly unenjoyable form of
>>> gluttony and a gateway to pride. Especially the part about 'Their
>>> dietary restrictions commonly cause sufferers to feel proud of their
>>> "virtuous" behaviour'.
>>
>> Lack of knowledge of what you are doing, of being cognizant of good and
>> evil, does obviate sin if caused by insanity. Schizophrenics, for
>> instance, are unable to differentiate reality from what their mind
>> produces. They cannot be held responsible for what they commit as they
>> know not true from false, good from evil, godly from deviltry.
>>
>> Or at least, that's what the priests taught me. :D
>
>I was mostly thinking of various and sundry diagnosable compulsions. For
>example, a kleptomaniac can pile up a ton of "shall not steal"
>incidents, more than can possibly be individually absolved.
God's mercy is allegedly infinite. So if he asks in sincerity, and
makes an effort to avoid sinning in the future, he is absolved of his
sins. If he's not sufficiently aware of what he's doing enough to ask
for forgiveness, then I think it's the same case as was mentioned
above.
Of course, he could cover his bases by dropping a reference to sins
he's not aware of while he's asking forgiveness for the ones he is
aware of.
Kaos
>On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:09:12 -0500, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>
>> Does mental defect obviate sin? For example, The Guardian is reporting
>> an obsession with health eating as a "serious psychological
>> condition"[1]. I'm seeing this as a particularly unenjoyable form of
>> gluttony and a gateway to pride. Especially the part about 'Their
>> dietary restrictions commonly cause sufferers to feel proud of their
>> "virtuous" behaviour'.
>
>Lack of knowledge of what you are doing, of being cognizant of good and
>evil, does obviate sin if caused by insanity. Schizophrenics, for
>instance, are unable to differentiate reality from what their mind
>produces. They cannot be held responsible for what they commit as they
>know not true from false, good from evil, godly from deviltry.
>
>Or at least, that's what the priests taught me. :D
It seems to be in concordance with the creation story. Adam and Eve
were without sin until they ate the fruit of knowledge, and became
able to distinguish good from evil.
Peter H. Coffin
The very nature of sin is a turning away from good. That can be active,
by doing bad things, or passive, by making choices based on false
understanding. That's the whole basis for parents teaching their
children about faith and church, for people to go convert heathens, and
why heresy is so much more bad than fornication.
--
They got rid of it because they judged it more trouble than it was worth.
(And considering they'd gone to great lengths to minimize its worth,
I suppose they were right.)
-- J. D. Baldwin
GryffnStryff
> "Andrew R Stallings" <exile...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:h72kbu$ol5$4...@news.eternal-september.org...
Forgive them, for they know not what they do. Just because it's legal
don't make it right. Sinner! Heathen! Goth! (in the true
architectural style).
Jennie Kermode
> The very nature of sin is a turning away from good. That can be active,
> by doing bad things, or passive, by making choices based on false
> understanding.
Donald's little orange catechism thingy says that it's a sin
to lead somebody else into sin even if one doesn't actually do the
sinful thing oneself, which makes some sense and fits in with this idea.
This too can take a passive form, for instance, by failing to
brai^H^H^H tell one's children about God.
Peter H. Coffin
> On 2009-08-29, Peter H. Coffin <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>> The very nature of sin is a turning away from good. That can be active,
>> by doing bad things, or passive, by making choices based on false
>> understanding.
>
> Donald's little orange catechism thingy says that it's a sin
> to lead somebody else into sin even if one doesn't actually do the
> sinful thing oneself, which makes some sense and fits in with this idea.
> This too can take a passive form, for instance, by failing to
> brai^H^H^H tell one's children about God.
Exactly. And the ritual of baptism, in most sects, includes a promise to
do so. Convenience, children that aren't baptised don't get the Heaven
option at all, which provides a lot of incentive to have the parents
sign up. (Of course, if the kid dies before they reasonably have a
chance, that's a pass...)
--
16 megs in a '95 box! Yo Ho Ho and a battle of RAM!
kest
> Does mental defect obviate sin?
That's kind of a complicated question. What is 'sin' anyway?
For example, The Guardian is reporting
> an obsession with health eating as a "serious psychological
> condition"[1]. I'm seeing this as a particularly unenjoyable form of
> gluttony and a gateway to pride. Especially the part about 'Their
> dietary restrictions commonly cause sufferers to feel proud of their
> "virtuous" behaviour'.
I'm not sure that 'unenjoyable gluttony' isn't an oxymoron. As far as
pride, if your actions cause one to become snobbish, then that could be
a problem. But it seems from the article that the people suffering this
sort of thing are more concerned about their own actions than those of
others, which would remove it from this category of sin in my personal
view.
k
Peter H. Coffin
> Peter H. Coffin wrote:
>> Does mental defect obviate sin?
>
> That's kind of a complicated question. What is 'sin' anyway?
Pick a definition that works for you. Odds are that we'll thrash around
for a while, then find out that whatever you picked isn't *that*
different from what someone else picked.
>> For example, The Guardian is reporting
>> an obsession with health eating as a "serious psychological
>> condition"[1]. I'm seeing this as a particularly unenjoyable form of
>> gluttony and a gateway to pride. Especially the part about 'Their
>> dietary restrictions commonly cause sufferers to feel proud of their
>> "virtuous" behaviour'.
>
> I'm not sure that 'unenjoyable gluttony' isn't an oxymoron. As far as
> pride, if your actions cause one to become snobbish, then that could be
> a problem. But it seems from the article that the people suffering this
> sort of thing are more concerned about their own actions than those of
> others, which would remove it from this category of sin in my personal
> view.
If one accepts the idea that sin is, in fact, the turning away from
good, then obsessions with non-good things, or even obsession with good
things to the exclusion of the whole of goodness, is definitly sinful.
--
73. I will not agree to let the heroes go free if they win a rigged contest,
even though my advisors assure me it is impossible for them to win.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
The Exiled, V.2
<whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>> Does mental defect obviate sin? For example, The Guardian is reporting
>> Lack of knowledge of what you are doing, of being cognizant of good and
>> evil, does obviate sin if caused by insanity. Schizophrenics, for
>> instance, are unable to differentiate reality from what their mind
>> produces. They cannot be held responsible for what they commit as they
>> know not true from false, good from evil, godly from deviltry.
>>
>> Or at least, that's what the priests taught me. :D
>
>Yes but were your trousers neatly folded over your left or
>right arm while being taught. ;-)
Ha. Haha. Neither. ;)
Although, scarily enough, the pastor of my first church was subtly
removed in my young formative years due to his habit of liking altar
boys a little too well. More scarily, he was replaced with a pastor of
the exact same last name.
Joseph Brenner
"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> writes:
> Does mental defect obviate sin?
Funny you should ask that question. I was just thinking about starting
a new thread on the subject...
Of late, I've had to deal with someone who is arguably mentally ill,
and you might be inclined to take the line that I should cut them some
slack because of this, their bad behavior is supposedly not under their
control; it's something they should be pitied for rather than reprimanded.
At this point, I am not inclined to agree... and in fact, I would guess
that anyone who's really had their nose rubbed in a case like this gets
over that notion pretty quickly.
The way it seems to me at present is that the "mentally ill" are often,
to a large extent in control of that illness, but they enjoy indulging
in it: The warped brain chemistry is more exciting; the drama the
crazy behavior causes keeps life interesting.
There are cases where that's abundantly clear, e.g. medication exists
and has been prescribed to treat the problem, but they go off the meds
like a drunk diving back into the bottle.
Even when it's not a case of "going off the meds", usually there are
obvious avenues of treatment that are being ignored (e.g. the drug
addict that refuses to touch NA because those 12 step people can be
so annoying).
The idea that the mad are out-of-touch with the real is an
exaggeration-- I think they're often well aware of what's going on,
the actual madness is they want to keep being mad anyway, in spite of
knowing that they're being mad.
Peter H. Coffin
Hmm... there's an interesting wrinkle in this, then. If God afflicts one
with mental defect, then it's important to know whether God wants one to
overcome that defect or not. Because, simply put, sin is (at essense) the
acting contrary to God's will. I can't see how in any case God might
*want* someone to be mentally ill, or at least not in a sense other than
a trial or test of seeing how one will attempt to resolve it. That puts
the whole *concept* of wanting to be excused for it, expecting to be
excused for it, actively or passively avoiding treatment, all of those
are sinful in and of themselves.
--
27. I will never build only one of anything important. All important systems
will have redundant control panels and power supplies. For the same reason
I will always carry at least two fully loaded weapons at all times.
whisky-dave
"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhecjkf....@abyss.ninehells.com...
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:23:50 -0700, Joseph Brenner wrote:
>>
>> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> writes:
>>
>>> Does mental defect obviate sin?
Yes, that was nice an easy wasn;t it :-)
>> The way it seems to me at present is that the "mentally ill" are often,
>> to a large extent in control of that illness,
I have more of a problem with the term illness and what that means.
>>but they enjoy indulging
>> in it:
Then I wouldn;t call it an illness.
>> There are cases where that's abundantly clear, e.g. medication exists
>> and has been prescribed to treat the problem, but they go off the meds
>> like a drunk diving back into the bottle.
And what's wrong with that ?
>> Even when it's not a case of "going off the meds", usually there are
>> obvious avenues of treatment that are being ignored (e.g. the drug
>> addict that refuses to touch NA because those 12 step people can be
>> so annoying).
>>
>> The idea that the mad are out-of-touch with the real is an
>> exaggeration-- I think they're often well aware of what's going on,
>> the actual madness is they want to keep being mad anyway, in spite of
>> knowing that they're being mad.
>
> Hmm... there's an interesting wrinkle in this, then. If God afflicts one
> with mental defect,
Believing in God is the Original mental defect ;-)
> then it's important to know whether God wants one to
> overcome that defect or not.
Why is it considered a defect and something to overcome.
Why create defective people ?
> Because, simply put, sin is (at essense) the
> acting contrary to God's will. I can't see how in any case God might
> *want* someone to be mentally ill, or at least not in a sense other than
> a trial or test of seeing how one will attempt to resolve it.
Well the christain God doesn;t do that sort of thing does he ?
> That puts
> the whole *concept* of wanting to be excused for it, expecting to be
> excused for it, actively or passively avoiding treatment, all of those
> are sinful in and of themselves.
But if sin is going against Gods wishes then and God has installed this
defect
in you that creates sin surely you should do anyhting to overcome it or
alter that defect.
So it's back on the Bottle for me, God told me to find him in the bottom of
a bottle. :-)
Satori
> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> writes:
>
>> Does mental defect obviate sin?
>
> Funny you should ask that question. I was just thinking about starting
> a new thread on the subject...
>
> Of late, I've had to deal with someone who is arguably mentally ill,
> and you might be inclined to take the line that I should cut them some
> slack because of this, their bad behavior is supposedly not under their
> control; it's something they should be pitied for rather than reprimanded.
>
> At this point, I am not inclined to agree... and in fact, I would guess
> that anyone who's really had their nose rubbed in a case like this gets
> over that notion pretty quickly.
>
> The way it seems to me at present is that the "mentally ill" are often,
> to a large extent in control of that illness, but they enjoy indulging
> in it: The warped brain chemistry is more exciting; the drama the
> crazy behavior causes keeps life interesting.
>
> There are cases where that's abundantly clear, e.g. medication exists
> and has been prescribed to treat the problem, but they go off the meds
> like a drunk diving back into the bottle.
This pretty much describes the situation with my mother. She's recently
had her third severe manic episode[1] in about five years. It has become
very hard for me to sympathize with her, at this point. While I realize
that there comes a point in her mania where she is literally out of
control, and may not be directly responsible for her behaviour, I still
feel she's indirectly responsible for going off her damn meds in the
first place.
> Even when it's not a case of "going off the meds", usually there are
> obvious avenues of treatment that are being ignored (e.g. the drug
> addict that refuses to touch NA because those 12 step people can be
> so annoying).
>
> The idea that the mad are out-of-touch with the real is an
> exaggeration-- I think they're often well aware of what's going on,
> the actual madness is they want to keep being mad anyway, in spite of
> knowing that they're being mad.
With my mother, I think she enjoys hypomania. I think full-blown manic
episodes scare her, but she convinces herself that she can go off her
meds, feel some hypomania, and keep everything under control with
meditation, herbal supplements, self-help tapes, or whatever. But when
the full on madness comes, she can't stop it.
[1] Severe enough to require hospitalization against her will for a
period of weeks to stabilize her.
Dark Phoenix
"Satori" <dwis...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:p6NFm.295011$cf6....@newsfe16.iad...
>> With my mother, I think she enjoys hypomania. I think full-blown manic
> episodes scare her, but she convinces herself that she can go off her
> meds, feel some hypomania, and keep everything under control with
> meditation, herbal supplements, self-help tapes, or whatever. But when the
> full on madness comes, she can't stop it.
This is a common problem that bipolars have. When hypomanic or manic, they
feel strong, have tons of ideas (even if they make no sense), feel that they
fascinate everyone around them with their talking, and, most important,
aren't fucking depressed. They feel the meds blunt their creativity. They
hate to risk losing this feeling.
I knew one guy who committed suicide during a *manic* state, because he knew
it was coming to an end and couldn't stand the thought. That's how fucking
strong the desire to feel that way can be.
--
Laurie Brown, Dark Phoenix
dark_p...@netw.com
http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/103910/laurie_brown.html
"To destroy the Western tradition of independent thought, it is not
necessary to burn books. All we have to do is leave them unread for a couple
of generations."
--Robert Maynard Hutchens.
NightMist
<dark_p...@netw.com> wrote:
>
>"Satori" <dwis...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:p6NFm.295011$cf6....@newsfe16.iad...
>>> With my mother, I think she enjoys hypomania. I think full-blown manic
>> episodes scare her, but she convinces herself that she can go off her
>> meds, feel some hypomania, and keep everything under control with
>> meditation, herbal supplements, self-help tapes, or whatever. But when the
>> full on madness comes, she can't stop it.
>
>This is a common problem that bipolars have. When hypomanic or manic, they
>feel strong, have tons of ideas (even if they make no sense), feel that they
>fascinate everyone around them with their talking, and, most important,
>aren't fucking depressed. They feel the meds blunt their creativity. They
>hate to risk losing this feeling.
Plus so many doctors just throw meds at you with no regard for
anything but treating the symptoms they deem significant. The drugs
can put you in a coma while you bleed from every orifice, but if the
symptoms are mellowed it is all good.
Not a way I can live, nor a lot of other people.
I am primarily manic. I do not have a noticable depressive cycle.
There is just almost normal ranging through faster than light speed.
I only hit a point where I am nearly paralyzed by my brain going too
fast once or twice a decade. That is not the wicked nasty part
though. The only really horrible bit is the emotional eideticism.
The more manic I am or the stronger the emotion, the more prone the
particular incident is to be stored in my brain in full blown eidetic
glory. The more manic I get, the more likely random recall of such
stuff is. That is the bit that is often interpreted by shrinks as
manic psychosis.
>
>I knew one guy who committed suicide during a *manic* state, because he knew
>it was coming to an end and couldn't stand the thought. That's how fucking
>strong the desire to feel that way can be.
>
Stufff like that happens, though rarely.
More often you get manics commiting suicide after they are put on the
drugs and they realize that this is how they are supposed to live for
the rest of their life.
NigthtMist
--
Legolas is my house elf
moonglow minnow
> Stufff like that happens, though rarely.
> More often you get manics commiting suicide after they are put on the
> drugs and they realize that this is how they are supposed to live for
> the rest of their life.
Of course, the even more common scenario is the bipolar person
committing suicide because they just can't take being slammed into the
wall again with the soul-destroying depression that often follows a
manic episode. There are also many suicides that occur in mixed states,
in which one is manic and extremely agitated.
Maeve >^..^< also bipolar, but with depressive and mixed episodes too.
only medicated to the point of optimal functioning.
--
http://moonglowminnow.wordpress.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/minnow/
Peter H. Coffin
> Maeve >^..^< also bipolar, but with depressive and mixed episodes too.
> only medicated to the point of optimal functioning.
Yeah, well... That's what the psychiatrists are aiming for as well. Some
aren't as careful as they should be, and some patients aren't as clear
about communicating effects as they should be, but that's still the
goal.
--
When C++ is your hammer, everything looks like a thumb.
-- Steven M. Haflich
Dark Phoenix
"NightMist" <night...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae95883...@news.windstream.net...
> Plus so many doctors just throw meds at you with no regard for
> anything but treating the symptoms they deem significant. The drugs
> can put you in a coma while you bleed from every orifice, but if the
> symptoms are mellowed it is all good.
> Not a way I can live, nor a lot of other people.
I've read and heard that a lot about lithium. The things it does doesn't
sound like anything I'd want to put up with.
>
> I am primarily manic. I do not have a noticable depressive cycle.
> There is just almost normal ranging through faster than light speed.
> I only hit a point where I am nearly paralyzed by my brain going too
> fast once or twice a decade. That is not the wicked nasty part
> though. The only really horrible bit is the emotional eideticism.
> The more manic I am or the stronger the emotion, the more prone the
> particular incident is to be stored in my brain in full blown eidetic
> glory. The more manic I get, the more likely random recall of such
> stuff is. That is the bit that is often interpreted by shrinks as
> manic psychosis.
Yikes. That sounds oddly like some of the things OCD can produce, only on a
massively exponential scale. *cringes at the thought*
> Stufff like that happens, though rarely.
> More often you get manics commiting suicide after they are put on the
> drugs and they realize that this is how they are supposed to live for
> the rest of their life.
I can see that. It would be depressing. I know a couple of folks with
bi-polar who are fine with their meds, both physically and emotionally, but
most aren't happy with them. And that leads to them going off their meds at
times, sometimes just to have their bowels in order for a while. (I seem to
know a very large number of people with bi-polar disorder. I have no idea
why.)
whisky-dave
"Dark Phoenix" <dark_p...@netw.com> wrote in message
news:4aCdnSDKrYUOsXfX...@povn.com...
>
> "NightMist" <night...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4ae95883...@news.windstream.net...
>> Plus so many doctors just throw meds at you with no regard for
>> anything but treating the symptoms they deem significant. The drugs
>> can put you in a coma while you bleed from every orifice, but if the
>> symptoms are mellowed it is all good.
>> Not a way I can live, nor a lot of other people.
>
> I've read and heard that a lot about lithium. The things it does doesn't
> sound like anything I'd want to put up with.
It's used in labtop batteries to give them morehours use per charge.
> I can see that. It would be depressing. I know a couple of folks with
> bi-polar who are fine with their meds,
The only thing I relally know about bipolar is that the majority of
transistors I
order are bipolar and Stacy Slater in Eastenders, and apparently bipolar is
an inherited
condition. So watching EE and reading upg are bot educational ;-)
>both physically and emotionally, but most aren't happy with them. And that
>leads to them going off their meds at times, sometimes just to have their
>bowels in order for a while. (I seem to know a very large number of people
>with bi-polar disorder. I have no idea why.)
I don't really know anyone with bi-polar disorder but I do know people
that act a bit strange at times.
Zotz
> I've read and heard that a lot about lithium. The things it does doesn't
> sound like anything I'd want to put up with.
Tricky stuff, but according to a friend prescribed the stuff, when
it works it really does work.
G.
--
Stated opinions have been adopted as official policy and will be supported
by any and all measures deemed necessary, including (but not limited to)
litigation, criminal prosecution, and/or the application of lethal force
12345678902234567890323456789042345678905234567890623456789072345678908234567890