NEWS: Autistic child horror story
Morwen
cleaned up very well afterward):
"Two hundred years ago most of these kids were tossed down the well or
thumped against the fence post. It was either that or watch your own torn to
pieces by the coyote, or trampled to death in the corral, or drown in the
duck pond or tumble off a ledge or wander off in a blizzard. If you were of
an educated class, institutionalization became an option. A way out. There
were always the few, though, whose pride or familial loyalty or stubbornness
would not allow them to abandon such a child. Upright, determined mothers --
mostly -- who would rescue the idiot from the snowbank, from their husband's
impassive grip, and nurse it and attend and teach the strange thing until the
child might even say "hello" when ordered and carry a basket of eggs without
stumbling.
"There's just something missing in his head is all. He be slow, like your
Uncle Bert. The husband had grown up seeing three-headed lambs and bizarre
carrots looking more like udders. He was aware of nature's imperfections.
Sometimes it snowed in August. Sometimes the bread didn't rise. Best to throw
out that mix. Best to keep the lines clean, the herds strong, purebred. But
his wife refuses to push the runt away. Her husband, a man who shoots old
mules and pulls out the dead weed and makes a Saturday night vest from the
skin of a stillborn calf, has neither pity nor patience with the wife's
indulgent efforts in the matter of the idiot. He will ignore the child. Like
the lame piglet and the other orphaned stock following the wife around for
the bottle, if she wants to put up with that, well, just keep 'em out of my
way."
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/09/27/autism/index1.html
Sometimes the old well-drowning, fence-post-smashing ways were better and
smarter than what we do now.
Morwen
Scott Amspoker
>Dreadful story of autistic child who smears shit everywhere (which is never
>cleaned up very well afterward):
>
>"Two hundred years ago most of these kids were tossed down the well or
>thumped against the fence post. It was either that or watch your own torn to
>pieces by the coyote, or trampled to death in the corral, or drown in the
>duck pond or tumble off a ledge or wander off in a blizzard.
Hey, they didn't have oven-hot cars 200 years ago. What were they
supposed to do?
sda_mail Scott | Yields over 30 blasts or
@comcast.net Amspoker | 80 gentle honks per charge!
^ my email |
khan
>>Dreadful story of autistic child who smears shit everywhere (which is never
>>cleaned up very well afterward):
>>
>>"Two hundred years ago most of these kids were tossed down the well or
>>thumped against the fence post. It was either that or watch your own torn to
>>pieces by the coyote, or trampled to death in the corral, or drown in the
>>duck pond or tumble off a ledge or wander off in a blizzard.
>
>
> Hey, they didn't have oven-hot cars 200 years ago. What were they
> supposed to do?
I must have missed the part of the article where the parents expressed
gratitude for all the pro-lie folks who unselfishly volunteered their
time and skills in service to the precious/innocent/sacred sprog.
Doug O'Neal
>
> Dreadful story of autistic child who smears shit everywhere (which is never
> cleaned up very well afterward):
>
> "Two hundred years ago most of these kids were tossed down the well or
> Sometimes the old well-drowning, fence-post-smashing ways were better and
> smarter than what we do now.
Well, as someone who *is* autistic, I have to ask -- where do we draw
the line? There are cases where you obviously wouldn't euthanize
(like me, I would hope!), and (accepting your argument) cases where we
would. But what about the HUGE middle ground of the autism spectrum?
Who's to make that decision? I sure as heck wouldn't want any part of
the US government doing it, nor most psychologists/psychiatrists I've
met.
Doug
jacqui{JB}
news:0001HW.BB9CA154...@news.gmavt.net...
> "Two hundred years ago most of these kids were
> tossed down the well ...
"[D]own the well"? Um, ew.
-j
Morwen
(in message <43162340.03092...@posting.google.com>):
I'm talking more about social expectations and pressure (people are already
expected to abort Down syndrome fetuses -- I read the other day that about
90% do when they know they've got a Down fetus) for severely fucked up
fetuses and preemies, not government coercion. We're drowning in an
ever-deepening sea of extremely defective children (and an even deeper sea of
apparently limitless "special" education costs, as evidenced by obscenely
high property taxes). I know several people with tard children, and it seems
to me that everyone would be better off if the kids hadn't been born.
"Blessings," my ass!
Maybe I wouldn't be so damn angry if there were less mainstreaming (only for
the "special" kids who are capable of behaving in class) and a reasonably low
per-pupil cap on special education spending, but as it is we waste millions
on horribly behaved, shit-smearing defectives who need full-time classroom
aides while the kids who will be able to amount to something do without
because so much of the money goes to the useless and disruptive.
This is why I think, for example, that abortion of fetuses that are known to
be severely fucked up is a good thing, and why I think that micropreemie
fertfreaks should be allowed to die mercifully instead of being tortured for
months or years with tubes and operations so they live to be cabbages.
Morwen
Morwen
(in message <bl8l7k$2ptr$1...@news.cybercity.dk>):
I suppose after the dreadful "accident" the defectosprog's corpse was fished
out of the well before it could rot so the parents could do the expected
wailing and gnashing of teeth. It's more merciful than sizzling, at least.
Morwen
IleneB
<critt...@netscape.net> wrote:
> I must have missed the part of the article where the parents expressed
> gratitude for all the pro-lie folks who unselfishly volunteered their
> time and skills in service to the precious/innocent/sacred sprog.
A co-worker of mine has a horribly damaged child. She was told late in
her pregnancy (like 5-6 months) that a hunk of the fetus' brain was
missing. The docs estimated a spectrum of effects, from somewhat to
pretty bad. The husband left it up to co-worker R, who said that, being
Catholic and all, she decided to "give the baby a chance."
Well, baby H is now 4 years old. She wasn't expected to live this long
at all. She is blind, deaf, profoundly retarded (close to newborn
level), totally flaccid from cerebal palsy, has severe seizures and
frequent trips to ICU for respiratory failure/pneumonia. She is
tube-fed. She has zero prognosis. Recently, there have been
fund-raising efforts in the community (and among co-workers) to buy a
handicapped van and redo the house for lifts, equipment, etc. In a
newspaper article about this family, co-worker R says, "She is always
smiling. She's the light of our lives. I know she wishes she could put
her arms around you."
I'd never say so anywhere but here, but I think they should let this
poor child go. Next time she's in ICU, do comfort measures. Don't treat
with ventilators, etc. It troubles me that her parents are keeping her
alive for their own emotional needs (and her mother told me she was
expected to die by age three, and that she'd consider trying to have a
healthy child "after H.")
She says many people say all the usual swill about "special children
being gifts" and "doG chose you" etc.
I'm ponyiny up a few bucks for the fund to avoid negative feelings at
work. I think they should let this kid go, in peace and comfort.
Ilene B
Stella Hackell
> Dreadful story of autistic child who smears shit everywhere (which is never
> cleaned up very well afterward):
>
> "Two hundred years ago most of these kids were tossed down the well or
> thumped against the fence post.
How the hell would he know? Was he there? Does he have archives and
diaries
from pioneers who wrote, "The baby seemed defective so we drowned
her"?
Some kinds of problems don't show up until a kid is several years
old--a bit late for swinging by the ankles against the fence post.
Kids with severe mental defects also tend to have physical defects
(not
always, but often) that lead to early death. THAT's what used to
happen to
these kids--not being smashed against the fencepost by their parents.
Antiobiotics and other miracles of mod. medicine have allowed a lot
of seriously defective kids to live who would otherwise have died.
What
people need to think about, in relation to severely defective
children,
is whether some kinds of care are appropriate or should be
withheld--not how
to off someone who's already been born.
Sheesh.
Stella
Omixochitl
news:a9c69eb4.03093...@posting.google.com:
> What
> people need to think about, in relation to severely defective
> children,
> is whether some kinds of care are appropriate or should be
> withheld--not how
> to off someone who's already been born.
Heck, that's what *all* potential parents need to think about, in relation
to *any* potential children. Test the pregnancy and ask oneself if one
could deal with having that kid, no matter if the results say disabled
("would he suffer with this condition?") or twins ("do we have the means to
raise 2 more kids?") or female ("could we afford the dowry?") or no
surprises at all ("do we have the means to raise 1 more kid?").
Scorpio Chick
> >
> > "Two hundred years ago most of these kids were tossed down the well or
> > thumped against the fence post.
>
>
> How the hell would he know? Was he there? Does he have archives and
> diaries
> from pioneers who wrote, "The baby seemed defective so we drowned
> her"?
>
One of my great-great grandmother's relatives died at 7 years old in
very murky circumstances. From the descriptions I have from my
grandmother (who heard this from the other cousins in the family), she
was mentally retarded to a similar degree as the girl in the Salon
story. She had violent outbursts, and was extremely passive otherwise,
and apparently spent a lot of time locked up in an outbuilding to keep
her from being killed during standard farming operations. Of course
the family made all the appropriate noises of shock and grief at the
funeral, but by all accounts the story that she "wandered out in the
snow" meant that she was allowed to freeze outside because she was
considered a burden on the family, who were subsistence level farmers.
I can't condone murder, but I can understand how people with these
kinds of children are driven to it. If it were me, I wouldn't trust
myself not to do the same.
- ScorpioChick
Doug O'Neal
> Exactly - Doug's against killing autistic people,
Actually, I'm primarily asking the question "Where do we draw the
line?" given that not every autistic is the same. It's a continuous
spectrum all the way from the lowest-functioning, like Morwen
mentioned, to Albert Einstein (who was probably Asperger's Syndrome /
high-functioning autistic) and Isaac Newton (flamin' Aspie, as is
fairly obvious from his biography).
>and you're against
> making people autistic in the first place.
I would be extremely against eliminating genes for autism, if that
were possible. The eccentricity that mild / high-functioning autism
brings gives the world a lot of its geniuses and very creative people.
Without that, we'd be a world of people who were wonderful
socializers and had great self-esteem, but who never questioned
authority or struck out on their own unique paths. (Perhaps an
exaggeration -- but a lot of history's great thinkers / creators
*have* shown autistic traits. It's been joked that fire was
domesticated by the nerds sitting off by themselves playing with
stuff, while the neurotypicals of the tribe were hanging out gossiping
about who in the tribe was bonking whom.)
Interesting thing -- number of diagnosed cases of autism in California
is skyrocketing. Part of this is no doubt that it's this decade's hip
epidemic, and another (big) part is simply better identification and
diagnosis tools. But another hypothesized factor is that all the
geeky computer professionals congregating in Silicon Valley are now
meeting each other and getting married, whereas in times past they
wouldn't have found partners. Two parents with some autism have a
good chance to produce a kid with more severe autism.
> Maybe the best way to phrase this is "every child a healthy child," a la
> Planned Parenthood's "every child a wanted child" (in other words, both
> don't kill people for being unwanted/unhealthy/whatever and don't make
> unhealthy/unwanted/whatever people in the first place).
Autistic does not equate to 'unhealthy'.
http://www.tonyattwood.com.au for a great introduction to Asperger's
Syndrome / high-functioning autism (two conditions that are either
similar or identical, depending on whom you listen to).
Doug
elizabeth
> ste...@lmi.net (Stella Hackell) wrote in message news:<a9c69eb4.03093...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > "Two hundred years ago most of these kids were tossed down the well or
> > > thumped against the fence post.
Quite so. It's not like it really matters to anyone else, anyway. If
the breeders don't want the child, it has no real value to anyone
else. Look how much money we spend on foster care, all the social
programs to protect children from their own parents, and look how most
of the "marginal" children turn out. Why should we continue to toss
away that much on children who shouldn't have been born in the first
place? We kill off, by omission and comission, millions of human
beings every year. We can't take care of everyone here now, so why
the crocodile tears about children no one wants?
> > How the hell would he know? Was he there? Does he have archives and
> > diaries
> > from pioneers who wrote, "The baby seemed defective so we drowned
> > her"?
Infanticide wasn't considered to be a serious crime. Children were
property, so what difference did it make to anyone else? It's still
true that the leading killer of small children is a parent, as you
should know.
>
> One of my great-great grandmother's relatives died at 7 years old in
> very murky circumstances. From the descriptions I have from my
> grandmother (who heard this from the other cousins in the family), she
> was mentally retarded to a similar degree as the girl in the Salon
> story. She had violent outbursts, and was extremely passive otherwise,
> and apparently spent a lot of time locked up in an outbuilding to keep
> her from being killed during standard farming operations. Of course
> the family made all the appropriate noises of shock and grief at the
> funeral, but by all accounts the story that she "wandered out in the
> snow" meant that she was allowed to freeze outside because she was
> considered a burden on the family, who were subsistence level farmers.
At best, she would have had a short life, probably end up dumped in
some lower echelon brothel. Girls had less value, and if
unmarriagable, that was their usual fate (this is why I am opposed to
legalizing prostitution--do we want to make this a valid career
option? Because only those girls with the least help in education and
social support end up there, and face it, it is a fate worse than
death. Do we want to normalize this? Then what do you do with the
"aged out" prostitutes? Men in the market for commercial cunt now
prefer VERY young girls and women; it's even worse as far a job
security than being a SAHM. I have a few friends in the 'industry'
and have yet to see any woman come out intact from that 'profession')
> I can't condone murder, but I can understand how people with these
> kinds of children are driven to it. If it were me, I wouldn't trust
> myself not to do the same.
I don't like being forced to pay for OTHER people's mistakes when
those children get dumped out into the foster care system, after the
kids have been further damaged by abuse. Who's going to pay for their
care? Oh, that's right, us evil, bitter, childhaters will.
Mingmong
> Omixochitl wrote:
<snip>
> I would be extremely against eliminating genes for autism, if that
> were possible. The eccentricity that mild / high-functioning autism
> brings gives the world a lot of its geniuses and very creative people.
> Without that, we'd be a world of people who were wonderful
> socializers and had great self-esteem, but who never questioned
> authority or struck out on their own unique paths. (Perhaps an
> exaggeration -- but a lot of history's great thinkers / creators
> *have* shown autistic traits. It's been joked that fire was
> domesticated by the nerds sitting off by themselves playing with
> stuff, while the neurotypicals of the tribe were hanging out gossiping
> about who in the tribe was bonking whom.)
> Autistic does not equate to 'unhealthy'.
> Doug
Think about it this way: I got tired of trying to convince NT's that
AS is a useful existence a while ago. I'd rather give 'em what they
want - I hope they do exterminate all autism/asperger's genes from the
gene pool and end up living in caves again, where they belong. I'd
even be prepared to help with the research. It's sad that you have to
be so 'nice' and 'reasonable' and trot out examples of alleged
brainiacs for de 'white' folks. They like it if we smile and do a song
and dance too.
Mingmong
Veronique
>
> > Exactly - Doug's against killing autistic people,
>
> Actually, I'm primarily asking the question "Where do we draw the
> line?" given that not every autistic is the same. It's a continuous
> spectrum all the way from the lowest-functioning, like Morwen
> mentioned, to Albert Einstein (who was probably Asperger's Syndrome /
> high-functioning autistic) and Isaac Newton (flamin' Aspie, as is
> fairly obvious from his biography).
Me, I'll draw the line at creatures that smear themselves with shit or
otherwise refuse to be housebroken.
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
nokomis
says...
>
>Omixochitl wrote:
>
>> Exactly - Doug's against killing autistic people,
>
>were possible. The eccentricity that mild / high-functioning autism
>brings gives the world a lot of its geniuses and very creative people.
> Without that, we'd be a world of people who were wonderful
>socializers and had great self-esteem, but who never questioned
>authority or struck out on their own unique paths.
You know, there are a heck of a lot of non-autistic people who have various
combinations of those traits, too. The diversity of the human race does not
depend solely on autism, you know.
>Interesting thing -- number of diagnosed cases of autism in California
>is skyrocketing. Part of this is no doubt that it's this decade's hip
>epidemic, and another (big) part is simply better identification and
>diagnosis tools. But another hypothesized factor is that all the
>geeky computer professionals congregating in Silicon Valley are now
>meeting each other and getting married, whereas in times past they
>wouldn't have found partners. Two parents with some autism have a
>good chance to produce a kid with more severe autism.
Does this mean people with short attention spans have recently been allowed to
pair off and breed in California, too? ADHD diagnoses have been increasing,
too.
<insert standard federal special education funding conspiracy theories here>
-valerie (the other one)
nok...@tdl.com
Doug O'Neal
> OTOH, I've also heard this defense used for genes that trigger clinical
> depression, since a lot of very creative people have committed suicide
> after giving the world stuff. It's basically "who cares if s/he killed
> herself instead of being happy or at least not so miserable, s/he left us
> some great paintings instead of just doing an office job!!!"
Ludwig van Beethoven didn't live an entirely happy life. He did leave
us with what to me is the most awesome, moving, inspiring music ever
written (my opinion; others might differ). Call me heartless if you
will -- but yes, if given the choice, I would much rather have his
nine symphonies and other works than the knowledge that one more
person lived a standard 'happy' life free of discord and psychological
issues. *Humanity* is richer for his having lived the life he did,
warts and all.
And you know -- I think that if Beethoven could come back today for a
short time and see that his music is still highly regarded
(practically worshipped by some), he'd agree. *He* wouldn't trade his
creative powers and musical output for someone's definition of
'happiness'.
Doug
Brian Leahy
> us with what to me is the most awesome, moving, inspiring music ever
> written (my opinion; others might differ).
>And you know -- I think that if Beethoven could come back today for a
> short time and see that his music is still highly regarded
> (practically worshipped by some), he'd agree. *He* wouldn't trade his
> creative powers and musical output for someone's definition of
> 'happiness'.
Has anyone seen the (rather obscure) movie "Brain Candy" starring the
Canadian comedy troupe The Kids In The Hall?
The above-mentioned notion is basically the theme of the movie. A
perfect antidepressant is invented, and suddenly nobody is motivated
to do anything. One character is a chronically depressed rock star
who is suddenly deprived of his inspiration when he starts taking the
drug.
Chrys
news:ccce8068.03100...@posting.google.com...
I'm a little confused here. Where in the world did the myth start that
only depressed people did anything creative? There are plenty of happy
well-adjusted people who contribute to the world too. Having spent my
time with depression, I at least am much more productive when I'm feeling
good than when I'm not.
Darth Ammer
berlin.de:
The truth is the most wonderful works of art and invention have come from
episodes of depression, fear, need, and/or strife. They are the only potent
motivators. If a person were satisfied and content, he or she would have no
impetus to create.
Don't confuse work productivity with acts of creation. People do function
better in a work environment when they are content.
--
Darth Ammer
Doug O'Neal
> OK, so where do you draw the line between tunes worth a suicide and tunes
> not worth a suicide?
Beethoven *didn't* commit suicide, of course (you presumably knew
that). He contemplated it at least once -- that's what the
Heiligenstadt Testament is about -- but concluded that he was going to
fight the problems that life had put in his way, and continue doing
his thing (music) as best he could.
> Trouble is, that argument's not just used in favor of making other people
> unhappy in order to get music out of them.
The fact his, LvB had a certain personality and nature as a conscious
being; the other fact is that he wrote a lot of good music. He was a
complete being. Nobody said to him "you must be unhappy, so that
you'll keep cranking out music" -- that's what he did, it was his
passion, it was his feeling of worth in life. The biographer Maynard
Solomon even argued that because of the way he saw himself and his
mission in life, he *couldn't* have lived a normal life by others'
standards. (I'm not sure I entirely agree, though.)
You cannot separate parts of someone's nature. Going back to the
original subject of this thread -- those (including parents) who want
to *cure* autism are really saying "I'd like to trade in my kid for a
normal one". You take away the autism, you change the fundamental
nature of the person. Yes, by all means, give the kid treatment to
enable him/her to function in society. But no, absolutely do not
expect or pressure him/her to be absolutely like the norm. That
constitutes doing violence to a unique conscious being.
> A lot of people use exactly
> the same logic in favor of making other people unhappy in order to get
> other stuff (like babies) out of them: "Benjamin Franklin contributed so
> much to the world that *humanity* is richer for his mother having lived
> the life she did, pumping out 10 kids and all" and so on.
On the other hand, maybe she liked this life? Certainly (and
unfortunately) there weren't too many other options for women back
then, perhaps especially in a frontier culture.
If she hadn't had kids, we would never have known the difference -- so
it's an a posteriori argument in any case. The fact is that she did,
and one of them became great, and we can't change history. (On the
other side of the argument, we can't change the fact that
Hitler(GODWIN ALERT!)'s mother wasn't CF.)
> It's a really anti-CF argument if you think about it: valuing other
> people's greed for one's fertility (a fertile mind, a fertile gonad,
> whatever) above one's own definition of happiness.
I'm not sure I'm correctly parsing this sentence.
> *He* might have traded his musical fertility for *his own* definition of
> happiness, and the individual's own definition of happiness is the only
> relevant one.
Perhaps his musical life constituted much of his definition of
happiness. If he was anything like I suspect, he didn't WANT to be
part of the normal, everyday, workaday world. (Kinda like me, often.)
I pray that we forever guard against any hint of forcing (by
genetics, treatment, etc.) these types of people to conform to our
standard definitions of what's normal.
Doug
Doug O'Neal
> "Brian Leahy" <bdl...@aol.com> wrote
> >> The above-mentioned notion is basically the theme of the movie. A
> >> perfect antidepressant is invented, and suddenly nobody is motivated
> >> to do anything. One character is a chronically depressed rock star
> >> who is suddenly deprived of his inspiration when he starts taking the
> >> drug.
I will say that for the past year, I've been taking prozac for just
over a year, and it's done wonderful things for me. I'm much happier.
Yet I still have the same creative sense (writing fiction and
poetry), same passions, etc. It's certainly not true that this drug,
at least, robs you of your mind and your self, like some people fear.
> The truth is the most wonderful works of art and invention have come from
> episodes of depression, fear, need, and/or strife. They are the only potent
> motivators.
I agree that a lot of great art has come from these motivations. I
would seriously dispute "most". Many of them were produced simply by
creative people doing what they do. Of course, if you include
"getting paid" under "need" and note that many artists expect to be
paid for what they do, you can include just about anything in the
above list of motivators.
It's certainly true that by no means have all creative people been
depressed etc. I'm a classical music fan, so it's what I know best:
just looking at my shelf, guys like Copland, Dvorak, and Stravinsky
didn't experience more than their fair share of strife for people who
lived in their times and places.
> If a person were satisfied and content, he or she would have no
> impetus to create.
Au contraire, in at least one case from classical music history --
Joseph Haydn. He had a steady job and income, and knew that he could
depend on Prince Esterhazy to keep paying him as long as the Prince
lived. But that gave him the *freedom* to experiment and create and
try new things. He was also fairly happy for most of his life. His
music seems standard and formulaic to us, because we know what
Beethoven and later composers wrote; but in his time, it was new stuff
-- bringing, for instance, both the symphony and string quartet into
essentially the form they still have.
Doug
Darth Ammer
news:43162340.03100...@posting.google.com:
> Darth Ammer wrote:
>
>> The truth is the most wonderful works of art and invention have come
>> from episodes of depression, fear, need, and/or strife. They are the
>> only potent motivators.
>
> I agree that a lot of great art has come from these motivations. I
> would seriously dispute "most". Many of them were produced simply by
> creative people doing what they do. Of course, if you include
> "getting paid" under "need" and note that many artists expect to be
> paid for what they do, you can include just about anything in the
> above list of motivators.
>
> It's certainly true that by no means have all creative people been
> depressed etc. I'm a classical music fan, so it's what I know best:
> just looking at my shelf, guys like Copland, Dvorak, and Stravinsky
> didn't experience more than their fair share of strife for people who
> lived in their times and places.
...But felt it anyway. I still say that strife and need are the prime
motivators for great works. Note I do not think that one needs extremes to
produce good work creatively speaking. Though I think the really, really
incredible art probably came from extremes.
You know, now that I'm thinking about it more, I should include joy on that
list of motivators.
>> If a person were satisfied and content, he or she would have no
>> impetus to create.
>
> Au contraire, in at least one case from classical music history --
> Joseph Haydn. He had a steady job and income, and knew that he could
> depend on Prince Esterhazy to keep paying him as long as the Prince
> lived. But that gave him the *freedom* to experiment and create and
> try new things. He was also fairly happy for most of his life. His
> music seems standard and formulaic to us, because we know what
> Beethoven and later composers wrote; but in his time, it was new stuff
> -- bringing, for instance, both the symphony and string quartet into
> essentially the form they still have.
I accuse you of binary thinking. One does not need to be hanging from a
cross to lack contentment and satisfaction. I suggest that Hayden was not
satisfied nor content with the music world he found, and filled that void
with his creations.
I'll avoid the problem of the subjective nature of art by not mentioning
that I think his work, as well as that of Copland, Dvorak, and Stravinsky
are all quite pedestrian.
Oops! ;)
--
Darth Ammer
deering
Doug O'Neal wrote:
>
> Darth Ammer wrote:
>
> > "Brian Leahy" <bdl...@aol.com> wrote
> > >> The above-mentioned notion is basically the theme of the movie. A
> > >> perfect antidepressant is invented, and suddenly nobody is motivated
> > >> to do anything. One character is a chronically depressed rock star
> > >> who is suddenly deprived of his inspiration when he starts taking the
> > >> drug.
>
> I will say that for the past year, I've been taking prozac for just
> over a year, and it's done wonderful things for me. I'm much happier.
> Yet I still have the same creative sense (writing fiction and
> poetry), same passions, etc. It's certainly not true that this drug,
> at least, robs you of your mind and your self, like some people fear.
Amen. I literally could not work when I was in the throes of serious
depression/OCD--I could barely get out of bed and when I did, I
couldn't help but obsess over various rituals and cleanliness.
Between prozac and therapy, I'm back on an emotional/mental even
keel and am able to deal much better with the issues that give me
grief. I'm not as productive as I'd like to be, but I'm certainly
doing better than I was.
C.
**
artisan
> Doug O'Neal wrote:
> > I will say that for the past year, I've been taking prozac for just
> > over a year, and it's done wonderful things for me. I'm much happier.
> > Yet I still have the same creative sense (writing fiction and
> > poetry), same passions, etc. It's certainly not true that this drug,
> > at least, robs you of your mind and your self, like some people fear.
>
> Amen. I literally could not work when I was in the throes of serious
> depression/OCD--I could barely get out of bed and when I did, I
> couldn't help but obsess over various rituals and cleanliness.
> Between prozac and therapy, I'm back on an emotional/mental even
> keel and am able to deal much better with the issues that give me
> grief. I'm not as productive as I'd like to be, but I'm certainly
> doing better than I was.
>
> C.
> **
A distinction needs to made about whether a certain emotion is
paralyzing, OR an emotion is enabling to produce art. Depression is
NEVER enabling. I don't think the great authors were as much
**depressed** when producing great art as having a problem that needed
to be solved, despite the horrible things which with they had to deal.
Problems that can be solved produce a kinetic sort of energy that can
be dealt with through using the mind as sort of a way to deal with the
problme, fill the void, etc. Depression and misery grind creativity
to a halt becuase of the vast amount of energy it takes to overcome.
I've had times where I made art when I was NOT happy, and when I was
very satisfied with my life (though that's a poor choice of words). I
pretty much think that TECHNICALLY, my best art was the one I JUST
finished. However, the art that expresses my core being was made in a
different time in my life, and may not be the most appreciated works
by the public.
I'm not saying I'm a great, wonderful artist, but I do feel the need
(and it is a NEED) to create and I have a website full of stuff to
prove it (/shameless plug).
Beethoven was very much like this. TECHNICALLY his art got "better
and better", more complicated and more difficult for contemporaries to
understand...later on in his life he felt like he had hardly written
ANYTHING yet....and this was even after the Ninth....but the music
that expressed his ***core being*** was from the time of the
Heiligenstadt Testament. His third symphony was his favorite until
the day he died. He even found it irritating that the public was SO
fixated on the Fifth...and the public is STILL fixated on the Fifth,
as if it was the only piece of music he had ever written!!!
However, the Third was created from the emotional "high" of his
idolization of Napoleon. When Nap. crowned hiself Emporer, that
idealization temporarily fell.....but the work, made from all that
kinetic energy, remained.
And while he very much knew how important his music was to produce,
partly because of this NEED to create, and partly because he got a
kick out of making some critics scratch their heads.....he also knew
that music was pretty much the only thing he could "do". :P
So I have to disagree that misery and depression produce great art.
Misery and depression ***stop** creativity. Depression is an awful,
soul-sucking state that needs treatment. **Energy** produces
creation, and once not necessarily has to be
bouncing-off-the-walls-happy to produce great art, but what the public
views as "great" and what the artist themselves thinks is "great" can
be two totally different things.
Rox (HUGE Beethoven fan)
______________________________________
"Do not be alarmed.
Sometimes our feelings conflict
with our programming."
--Android 16, Dragonball Z
http://www.geocities.com/artisan1998.geo/index.html
______________________________________
marika
>
> Maybe I wouldn't be so damn angry if there were less mainstreaming (only for
> the "special" kids who are capable of behaving in class) and a reasonably low
> per-pupil cap on special education spending, but as it is we waste millions
> on horribly behaved, shit-smearing defectives who need full-time classroom
> aides while the kids who will be able to amount to something do without
> because so much of the money goes to the useless and disruptive.
>
> This is why I think, for example, that abortion of fetuses that are known to
> be severely fucked up is a good thing, and why I think that micropreemie
> fertfreaks should be allowed to die mercifully instead of being tortured for
> months or years with tubes and operations so they live to be cabbages.
>
it was in some show years ago.
mk5000
"I noticed that you never refuted my statement/question, which actually
came from your bizarre that God had a mother. "--don
IleneB
O'Neal <tycho...@alltel.net> wrote:
> t's certainly true that by no means have all creative people been
> depressed etc.
Kris Kristofferson said he wrote his great songs about being
miserable/drunk the day after he was sober/less miserable, not during.
Ilene B
IleneB
Ammer <darth...@ELIMINATEWOOTsithism.org> wrote:
> If a person were satisfied and content, he or she would have no
> impetus to create.
Your humble opinion.
And utterly incorrect, in my personal and professional observation.
Ilene B
Darth Ammer
news:041020031458497940%ile...@shore.net:
Argumentum ad verecundiam.
--
Darth Ammer
Hatter
Hey don't take my job :)
Actually wouldn't that be more of Doug's fallacy?, I think her's would
be more Ad Hoc but you could say her use of the term "professional"
could make it Argumentum ad verecundiam, but I seldomly see it used to
undermine a position where the authority appealed to is the author
themselves. Also if she is in fact a mental healthcare professional,
Argumentum ad verecundiam is no longer a strong attack, as an appeal
to athority to those whom are experts in a feild is overall considered
to be good logic. To give an example if arguing a point of statecraft,
Winston Churchhill would be a valid authority to appeal to(you would
have to take the attack vector of showing how it did not apply in this
circumstance), but if discussing art, an appeal to a quote of Winston
Churchhill would be Argumentum ad verecundiam. Just to be fair, if I
were attempting to undermine your position, Affirmation of the
Consequent is what I would use.
Hatter
Just throwing in my two cents after taking them off my eyelids
Darth Ammer
news:3b1c7a4.03100...@posting.google.com:
Doesn't "Argumentum ad verecundiam" also refer to a dubious or ambiguous
claim of authority? I thought it did, thus my invocation.
--
Darth Ammer
IleneB
<nige...@aol.com> wrote:
> Also if she is in fact a mental healthcare professional,
I've worked as an RN in psychiatric hospitals for 22 years. I've
certainly seen many creative people of various diagnoses. Offhand, I'd
say there is no correlation between creation and depression. Those
people with diagnosed illness who are also creative tend to be manic
depressive. One small study showed that those people on lithium had
decreased creativity- not because of less depression, but less mania.
Anyway, I take difference with a blanket statement that people only
create when driven by misery. There's just no reason to believe that.
Ilene B
Darth Ammer
news:051020031528222892%ile...@shore.net:
Which I note is not really refuting what it is *I* said, which is that if
one were *satisfied and content* (passive states, really) that one would
have no impetus to create.
As I said in an earlier post, I should have included joy in the list of
potent motivators. It wasn't my point to claim that misery is the only
source of creative motive, but it is a very memorable and remarkable one
and from thus the idea that it is the only one.
--
Darth Ammer
Veronique
And if Beethoven was the original tortured musician, what explains JS
Bach? Happy life, good marriage, recognition in his lifetime...
Hatter
Well it is the logic error of appeal to authority, any famous,
powerful or 'smart person.' this can(but seldomly does) include
yourself. However using this as a "logic error attack" weakens
considerably if the person of authority is actually experienced and/or
trained in the feild. The classic modern example is an appeal to
Steven Hawking's views on dark matter theory, which since he is
without a doubt the most versed person in the world on the subject, an
appeal to his authority would be considered to be sound logic. It can
be a dubious claim to be authority, using the example here, if she was
a GP lisenced Nurse, she would be a smart and motivated invidual, but
only obliquely aquainted with mental healthcare issues, but since she
is an experienced mental health professional, her appeal to her own
authority is not a good vector for weaken her argument, as she is an
authority on the subject.
Hatter
wow what a meta discussion
IleneB
Ammer <darth...@ELIMINATEWOOTsithism.org> wrote:
> if
> one were *satisfied and content* (passive states, really) that one would
> have no impetus to create.
Really? What do you base this on? Being content is hardly a passive
state, after all, it usually takes a great deal of effort and work to
arrive at contentment.
I think people without talent have no impetus to create. Other than
that, I doubt mood is the primary motivation.
Ilene B
Darth Ammer
news:061020031533054399%ile...@shore.net:
satisfy
Function: verb
1 a : to carry out the terms of (as a contract) : DISCHARGE b : to meet a
financial obligation to
2 : to make reparation to (an injured party) : INDEMNIFY
3 a : to make happy : PLEASE b : to gratify to the full : APPEASE
4 a : CONVINCE b : to put an end to (doubt or uncertainty) : DISPEL
5 a : to conform to (as specifications) : be adequate to (an end in view) b
: to make true by fulfilling a condition <values that satisfy an equation>
<satisfy a hypothesis>
( #3 relevant)
Main Entry: content
Function: transitive verb
1 : to appease the desires of
2 : to limit (oneself) in requirements, desires, or actions
( #1 relevant)
No longer having need or want is as passive as it gets. If everything is as
you want it, why would you change it? Isn't art a matter of either adding
something good to the world or venting about the bad? Or even ridding the
world of the bad: "I was feeling down, but I saw Claude Monet's 'La Barque
à Giverny' and felt a little better". Or even something as simple as
feeling an art has not yet been fully explored - a dissatisfaction with the
field.
Art does not exist in a vaccum. Like evertyhing else in the universe it has
a cause. I am quite certain that cause is human dissatisfaction with the
world he or she finds him or her self in.
Anyone who still is under the mistaken impression that I'm trying to
further the idea that misery is the only source of art is a fucking idiot
who han't been paying attention.
--
Darth Ammer
Veronique
I'd amend this to say people without imagination have no impetus to
create. I find I'm most creative when I'm happiest.
YMMV, as usual.
tom c
"Jason G" <jrgu...@yahoo.REMOVExixTHISxixPART.com> wrote in message
news:blsqj...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Why Ilene, how dare you question the Tortured Artist meme. Mental illness
is
> nifty and edgy and creative 'n' stuff!
>
> --
I had the psych section at work today. Nifty my ass. At least tomorrow in
the Critical Care Section.
(usual rant omitted - damm tired tonight)
Tom C
Spandau
discussion of creativity and mental illness.
(No URL, sorry)
Spandau
**********************************************************************
Psychologists from the University of Toronto and Harvard University have
identified one of the biological bases of creativity.
The study in the September issue of the Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology says the brains of creative people appear to be more
open to incoming stimuli from the surrounding environment. Other
people's brains might shut out this same information through a process
called "latent inhibition" - defined as an animal's unconscious capacity
to ignore stimuli that experience has shown are irrelevant to its needs.
Through psychological testing, the researchers showed that creative
individuals are much more likely to have low levels of latent inhibition.
"This means that creative individuals remain in contact with the extra
information constantly streaming in from the environment," says
co-author and U of T psychology professor Jordan Peterson. "The normal
person classifies an object, and then forgets about it, even though that
object is much more complex and interesting than he or she thinks. The
creative person, by contrast, is always open to new possibilities."
Previously, scientists have associated failure to screen out stimuli
with psychosis. However, Peterson and his co-researchers - lead author
and psychology lecturer Shelley Carson of Harvard University's Faculty
of Arts and Sciences and Harvard PhD candidate Daniel Higgins -
hypothesized that it might also contribute to original thinking,
especially when combined with high IQ. They administered tests of latent
inhibition to Harvard undergraduates. Those classified as eminent
creative achievers - participants under age 21 who reported unusually
high scores in a single area of creative achievement - were seven times
more likely to have low latent inhibition scores.
The authors hypothesize that latent inhibition may be positive when
combined with high intelligence and good working memory - the capacity
to think about many things at once - but negative otherwise. Peterson
states: "If you are open to new information, new ideas, you better be
able to intelligently and carefully edit and choose. If you have 50
ideas, only two or three are likely to be good. You have to be able to
discriminate or you'll get swamped."
"Scientists have wondered for a long time why madness and creativity
seem linked," says Carson. "It appears likely that low levels of latent
inhibition and exceptional flexibility in thought might predispose to
mental illness under some conditions and to creative accomplishment
under others."
For example, during the early stages of diseases such as schizophrenia,
which are often accompanied by feelings of deep insight, mystical
knowledge and religious experience, chemical changes take place in which
latent inhibition disappears.
"We are very excited by the results of these studies," says Peterson.
"It appears that we have not only identified one of the biological bases
of creativity but have moved towards cracking an age-old mystery: the
relationship between genius, madness and the doors of perception."
This research was funded by the Stimson Fund and the Clark Fund at
Harvard University and by the Connaught Fund at U of T.
/This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University Of
Toronto./
IleneB
<jrgu...@yahoo.REMOVExixTHISxixPART.com> wrote:
> Why Ilene, how dare you question the Tortured Artist meme. Mental illness is
> nifty and edgy and creative 'n' stuff!
Oh, I forgot. See Under: Lisa & David, I Never Promised You a Rose
Garden, and that asshole Jack Nicholson in many movies.
Nothing quite like seeing a manic person screaming and pissing on
himself and biting flesh out of his own shoulder in a fit of creative
energy.
Someone should ask William Styron how depression aided his work. Or
Sylvia Plath.
Ilene B
IleneB
<L3xgb.167484$0v4.12...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Spandau
<fech...@att.net> wrote:
> Psychologists from the University of Toronto and Harvard University have
> identified one of the biological bases of creativity.
Interesting, thanks.
llene B
mrfea...@aol.ccom
I agree with you on mood, Ilene, but I don't think talent can be the impetus to
create either, or there would be no bad books or bad paintings.
And there sure are lots of both.
Mary
Cheryl Greer
mrfea...@aol.ccom wrote:
>
> I agree with you on mood, Ilene, but I don't think talent can be the impetus
> to
> create either, or there would be no bad books or bad paintings.
>
> And there sure are lots of both.
I have some modicum of talent, and a good eye for design. But I have
next to zero impetus to create. Lock me in a room with a blank piece of
paper, three days later that piece of paper will still be blank. A few
times a year, an idea will strike, and I'll become obsessed until I've
carried it out, but those are rare times.
That's why I always wanted to be a graphic designer rather than a
True Artiste(tm). I need someone to TELL me what to do (or at least
give me a framework), and then I can kick ass at it, but I have no
motivation to do anything if left to my own devices.
Cheryl
--
"The first thing you lose on a diet is brain mass."
--Margaret Cho
Jason Steiner
>
> And if Beethoven was the original tortured musician, what explains JS
> Bach? Happy life, good marriage, recognition in his lifetime...
His work was not recognized as genius until a century after his death
- and during that century it was nearly forgotten entirely - so I
doubt you could say he had the recognition he was due in his own
lifetime, although he got paid decently.
He was constantly at odds with his patrons, complained, went on
strikes for more money and better positions. He lost half of his
children in infancy and came home from one trip to find his first
wife - who he'd left in perfect health - dead and buried. (An event
which inspired Partita in D Minor for solo violin.)
There's plenty of angst there to keep the theory alive.
jason
--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story