This is the Message Centre for bllszbobakahahhahshomeakaharrysheardakahenryshomeakapistolakacatmanakawurzwelgummageakabobble
logicus tracticus philosophicus Started conversation Sep 6, 2003
by KK ZakrzewskiAbout Diamonic .
I cannot quite digest not so distant discussion about the Diamonic in the SAE . At the risk of simplification , sorry , rather over-elaboration, I would want to replace it with the notion of Pathos .Firstly ,however I would like to present my understanding of the concept of the Diamonic.
Having read many authors trying to say what Freud really said without bothering to , at least , quote him , I would not llike to re-interpret May in the same fashion .
May’s meaning of the concept is much clearer from his extensive descriptions of it at work rather than from a laconic and somewhat one-sided definition . Definitions , in general , are not the strongest part of May’s psychology . In fact , whenever he tries to be academic , the otherwise genial combination of clarity with complexity gets lost in the process . His forte is human understanding of the human entailing all the complexities of the struggle of living or , rather , becoming . Those complexities are therefore dynamic rather than ( as the definitions are ) static. Their dynamism is , at least partly , based on the workings of the primary defense mechanism ie repression , a mother of all defense mechanisms , if I can put it a bit lightly but preserving a combative nature or , rather , character of the word . The problem is that for May , though to much lesser extent than for his master Freud , the combat could only be true combat if there is an unconscious motive to it .
This is where the Diammond’s critique of the existential analysis as a spiceless or sting-less method of understanding human behaviour is directed to . Alleging there is no notion of repression or supression required for understanding the human nature and behaviour by existential analysis , he proceeds to offering the „ in-depth existential analysis ” that purports to encorporate those options . In result , he claims to arrive at a method that would be able to explain such crucial phenomena of human existence as that of evil .
The assumption in Diammond’s concept seems to be that unless there is a vertical move between the unconsciousness and the consciousness with repression as the valve mechanism , there is no dynamism in the mental phenomena , no psychodynamics . This sort of „ failure” , he claims , is bound to reduce the status of the phenomena in question - they lack vitality , force , energy . In Freudian terms , they lack catexis . In short , they are incomplete . Diammond „completes” them by (re-) invoking the concept of repression .
It would appear that without the recourse to the unknow ( repressed etc ) , we , human beings cannot quite deserve our name! We somehow cannot be interesting , dramatic and tragic enough if we do not repress and if we do not do things at least partially unaware of what we are doing . It seems to be impossible for the thought to be deserving its name without being , at least partially , unknown . In fact , perhaps - unthought ( Bolas, )!
I am far from saying that we do not possess propensity for not knowing , for de-focusing , denying etc. It is however , for a want of a better word , rather childish to be assuming a mystery where even a brief look detects there is something there that we just do not want to explore . Perhaps , because it is too simple or mundane ! Or , perhaps , seeing it means we have to relate to it . We have to express our stand , position vis a vis it , in the fullness of our consciousness . This means we have to take up responsibility ! Responsibility here does not mean responsibility for it . This means responsibility for ourselves in relation to it - our feelings , thoughts , attitude etc in relation to it , it meaning the object of our relating to.
Let us start from the basic example . I see the tree . If I am a psychoanalytically minded councellor and I have just read Freud’s
„ Psychopathology of everyday life” , before I start relating to the tree ( the object of my perception or thought if I actually think of rather than just see the tree ) , I am getting terrified with what it means to me on uncoscious level . ( I may be even more terrified with the number of years I need to spend in psychotherapy to find it out ! ) . There is a leap in the logical process that does not allow me to stay there and actually see and experience the tree . Instead , I am experiencing myself whilst looking at the tree . This is not to say that I will not arrive at some valid conclusions about myself whilst projecting onto and introjecting from the tree my various feelings , thougths etc ( the famous „ Tree Test ” is an example ) . This just means that I simply did not concentrate on tree as such so that to discern its all properties and subsequently to arrive at some idea of what it is as I see it . ( Let alone what it is as such ! ) That is where my relatedness to it starts . That is where my responsibility starts . This is a difficult and emotive bit . That is why I want for a while to stay with in-animate examples - tree is not the best one , certainly not as good as , say , stone, which sounds more in-animate .
Instead of going into the detail of our human hypocrisy and pretentiousness compatible with the vertical dimension of the psychic apparatus , it would be perhaps worth to offer instead a sort of existential understanding of the depth . This is not , of course , a dimention describable in any geometrical or unidirectional fashion .
Let us consider the concept of Pathos .
logicus tracticus philosophicus Posted Sep 7, 2003
Throughout centuries the law pertaining to madness has always constituted a part of general law. The needs for separate act has been debated for about 100 years and the actual works over subsequent projects dragged on for the last 60 years.
Thus the practice of Psychiatry goes on relying on a number of regulations and recommendations issued by the Ministry of Health and the IPN, the ethical codes and on conscience of the profession and its individual members.
The most sensitive issues of hospital admissions and discharges are still dealt with by the MHSW* instruction. It says, the hospital admission is in principle voluntary and at the patient’s request. There can also be an admission on the application by the patient’s family or guardian - when patients are unable to control their actions, for compulsory admission in emergency and an admission at the request of Court or Prosecutor - the issue falling under the Penal Law. IN this last respect, the person charged or found guilty of the culpable offence can go to hospital for observation/treatment if suspected of/confirmed to be suffering from disturbance of mental function that at least significantly decreases his ability to recognise the consequences of his actions and to control his behaviour at the time material. There are a minimum of 2 Psychiatrists to examine the patient and prepare a joint report. The last 20 years of preparatory and legislative works over the future Mental Health Act makes a history of its own and in parts quite a dramatic one. The crucial part of all projects and perhaps the source of their legislative failures is the insistence in the definition of what the protection of mental health is: “... counter-acting such social factors that are damaging to mental health ...”.
logicus tracticus philosophicus Posted Apr 21, 2004
LEVEL OF SERVICEORGANISATIONAL UNITADMINISTRATIVE ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISION
___________________________________________________________________________________COMMUNITY OP's(Together with HEALTH CENTRES)
Components of Medical Services Unit -(Gen Hospitals)Dept. of Health of a City or Voivodship
PSYCHIATRY EMERGENCY SERVICE(County) Council
2.(INTER) VOIVOIDSHIPMENTAL HEALTH SERVICESDEPT OF TREATMENT
(UK COUNTY)(based on mental hospitals)MINISTRY of HEALTH
Key: Complain about this post