> >Kelley, stop defending me.
>
> i haven't defended you at all. i pointed out something you might not
> know: carrol calls nearly everyone new to this list a variation of
> "ignorant asshole" or whatever.
No, he doesn't. That comment of Reese's was obnoxious, and if Carrol hadn't said something, then I or somebody else would have. Reese was simply repeating the classic ignorant insult that people who think they're depressed need to get more active and stop whining. He's an asshole. When you say things like that, you get called an asshole because you're causing people pain for no good reason. It's not as if we're learning anything from what the asshole emits. He's not saying it for edification (though he might believe this himself). He's saying it to have an effect on our affect, to reach into our minds and give it a nasty pinch. Presumably he does this because he's not paying attention. He knows not of what he tweaks. Perhaps it's not characteristic of Reese to engage in this kind of activity. On the other hand, why doesn't he apologize? His lapse has been made evident to him, yet he remains oblivious (no thanks to you). For some people, the failure to see what is obvious is a kind of action in itself, systematically (if unconsciously) perpetuated. Clearly, in his case it's not a cognitive disorder. We can see he's sound intellectually. If there's a disorder, it therefore resides in the ego. In my case it's located in the affect. For some it's in the brain, for others in a kind of superconsciousness we call "psychosis." I'm sure you find this all wondrously entertaining as well as educational.
>heck, he called names even when he knew i knew doug.
This statement has no meaning outside what it tells us about your mind.
Reese wrote:
> >I'm a malignant, ignorant shit,
> >Carrol says so, so it must be true,
> >even Doug thinks I breath methane or something.
> >Emphasis on "or something", I take it.
Oh, the poor victim. Amazing, isn't it, how the vicitimizer points at the victim and makes out like *this terrible person is hurting me*.
> should i go thru my archives of posts from dc-stuff? i recall that i was
> called
>
> a pop tart crunching ditz or something to that effect
> a fucking whore,
> a scene whore,
> oh and a dumb cunt --but maybe that was just wishful thinking
Point taken. But in the context it's all wrong. You're just adding your weight to this guy's delusion, encouraging the group to collectively fall asleep in it. You're trying to score a few points against your hated enemies (heh heh) at the expense of rational perception. In lesser venues this sort of thing leads to group-ego disturbance (cult).
> and matt cramer had some choice words from me too cause i like to dress
him
> up in a non sequitur gown and fuck me pumps. (hey matt! :) all in good
> fun doncha know!)
One of the most damaging effects of the dominant school of psychiatry is the use of the loaded word "histrionic" to label this sort of speech. It's not even about hysteria. It's about attracting attention.
> when you don't speak in the dominant lexicon or deploy the various idioms
> with facility in the milieux you float in and out of, you end up getting
> called names.
And sometimes you get called names, because you brought it on yourself.
> it's how groups maintain their coherence and sense of common identity,
even
> when they are rather diverse internally. it's an unavoidable process and
> all newbies have to go through the portal and learn how to do so.
Good point. But again out of context. Carroll's response to Reese was specific to the incident at hand.
Reese:
> >Doug, I'm not a "folks",
Of course not. You're a narcissist.
>>I've not engaged in ad hominems.
> >You have, however.
(weep)
> true. doug has a nasty habit of making general statements to the list,
> refusing to name the names of the offenders. like a teacher, he thinks
it
> best not to single people out and those who know they're innocent will
know
> that they weren't target. this is strange thing to think for a survivor
of
> Catholicism.
Never noticed that myself. But who knows? Maybe I've failed to see the dark side of Doug. It's always so hard to spot the shadow when the visage is so dazzling. (The Catholicism thing, btw, is a blunt instrument you wield against him on occasion).
> >Makes staying active take on a whole new significance, né?
Rubbing it in, eh?
> well, i harbor, like a lot of good ole americans, the can-do, pull myself
> up by the bootstraps, don't need no stinking drugs or help to get over my
> problems attitude.
So do I. (Just look at my socialism, with "state" in place of "drugs"). Yet there are many more with this attitude who aren't themselves mentally ill but who nonetheless apprehend perfectly clearly that mental illness is not just a function of the imagination (mind as content rather than reality) but is somehow mentally real.
>so, i'm resisting some of the discussions of the
> uniqueness and indeed existence of Depression . more so, i'm having a
> hard time b/c i'm somewhat familiar with thomas szasz's work on mental
> illness, as well as a slew of sociological work in general that talks
about
> how people "become" Depressed by going to a psychiatrist/therapist or an
> alchoholic by going to AA meetings or a co-dependent by going to some self
> help group. [...]
All very nice. Agreed-- some mental illnesses are based on delusion rather than, say, trauma and the resulting emotional imbalance.
> at any rate, even though i could whip out some books, refresh my memory
and
> make some arguments as to the problems with some of what has been said on
> this list, not to mention my own experiences, i think it's a good
situation
> to sit back and think and read and pay attention and possibly change my
> mind or at least learn to see the world from the perspective of someone
else.
Ahhh, the kind words to mask the poison. (Usually this kind of thing gets ridiculed on this list)
> finally, to others: i don't think reese mentioned that exercise would
cure
> depression. i think he was trying to suggest that we certainly have an
> interesting way of viewing these problems that differs quite a bit from,
> say, people in asian cultures. why do you suppose that is? he also
> simply said that he'd observed that people who are active aren't depressed
> and he made no causal argument. sure, he might have been implying or
> suggesting, but this was a severe over reaction.
Reese originally wrote:
>> What aspect (or lack thereof) Depression represents, I don't know,
>> but I know that persons who remain active don't seem to get
>> depressed.
He's saying that those of us who get "clinically" depressed are simply too lazy to overcome it. The implication is that he doesn't see the profound difference between his mind and the chronically or episodically depressed mind. It makes you wish he could feel what it's actually like so if he has anything more to say on this matter, it will be an apology.
Ted