![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 15 to 39 of 50. Go back in thread:
Posted by Damos on August 22, 2005, at 18:13:08
In reply to Re: The Cartesian Model of Delusion » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on August 22, 2005, at 17:41:25
> just ignore me please.
And what if we won't huh?
They've re-imaged my computer and every post is 'NEW' AAARRRGGGHHH!!!!
Posted by alexandra_k on August 22, 2005, at 19:16:34
In reply to Re: The Cartesian Model of Delusion » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on August 22, 2005, at 18:13:08
Maher, Davies et al., and the APA definition of delusion are similar with respect to what they construe the delusional subject as doing in making their delusional utterance. They concur that in making the claim ‘I am dead’ the subject draws a false conclusion from their experience to what is the case in the world. They thus similarly consider delusional subjects to be expressing a belief about external reality – or the world beyond the subjects experience. So if this is the case then what are we to make of the subjects claim that they are dead? It might be natural to think that the subject goes from the experience of emotional death that Sass talked about to making a claim about their biological death. Whether the claim that the subject is biologically dead is true or false is mind independent in the sense that the subject can have false beliefs about the way things really are outside of their minds. It is typically granted that the claim ‘I am biologically dead’ is a false belief.
On this analysis of what the delusional subject is attempting to do in making their utterance there may be a problem with respect to consistency within the subjects belief network. Normal subjects are also not perfectly rational, however. Sometimes we discover that we do have contradictory beliefs in our belief network. While holding contradictory beliefs may not be so very abnormal we do expect people to be able to see that they are in fact endorsing a contradiction once the logic has been pointed out to them. While I am not so sure that the contradiction has been pointed out explicitly to the delusional subject it may be hard to see what sense we could make of them retaining their beliefs if it was.
This might be motivation enough for concluding that delusions are intractable from the intentional level and so one would be better off abandoning intentional explanation in favor of a neurophysiological account of the various kinds of brain damage that might result in delusion. In another more recent paper Davies et al., modify their two-factor account of delusions so that the first factor is no longer the anomalous experience that was talked about by Maher. Instead, they maintain that the first factor is neurophysiological deficit and that further research is needed to determine whether the anomalous experience features early, late, or not at all in the production of delusion. As such, they too seem to have abandoned the attempt to offer an intentional explanation of delusion. Instead they maintain that delusion should be explained by the presence of neurophysiological anomaly despite the point that the precise nature of the neurophysiological anomaly seems to be fairly idiosyncratic to particular individuals. Before we are tempted to give up on intentional explanation altogether, it might be worth considering another account that I shall offer of what the delusional subject might be attempting to do in making the claim ‘I am dead’.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 22, 2005, at 19:19:51
In reply to Re: From Experience to Belief, posted by alexandra_k on August 22, 2005, at 19:16:34
What seems to be in common to the accounts considered thus far is the notion that the delusional subject is taking their autonomic response to be informing them of the further fact that they have died. What I want to consider, however, is that this may not be the case for most subjects who maintain that they are dead. Instead of considering the subject to be attempting to make a false claim about reality on the basis of their experiences perhaps they are simply trying to report or express their experience as it seems to them to be where the anomalous experience is the loss of autonomic response. If this is indeed what some subjects are doing then this would make sense of why it is that they are so very certain about what they are saying. If they are reporting on their experience then they are indeed entitled to be certain that things are in fact the way they seem to the subject to be.
One of the problems with construing the subject as making a false claim about reality was the point that they did not seem to consider it to be relevant to what they were saying that they were still able to walk around. Perhaps they did not find it relevant because they did not draw the implicit steps. It would seem that a more likely explanation for this, however, is that it might be because facts such as their being able to walk around are indeed irrelevant to their utterance. If they are reporting on their experience then those facts would indeed be irrelevant as facts about the external world are irrelevant with respect to providing supporting or disconfirming evidence for the subjects experiences.
Campbell writes that delusional beliefs seem to have been elevated to the status of Wittgenstinean framework propositions by which he seemed to mean that they were immune to supporting or falsifying evidence. Some delusional beliefs seem to have taken on this quality. I would like to maintain that this is because reports of experience and that these are indeed immune to supporting or falsifying evidence from external reality. If this is the case then it would seem that the delusional subject is simply playing a language game in which the external world is disregarded as irrelevant. If they are simply expressing their experiences then they cannot be wrong, which may be why the delusion is held with such conviction. Their utterances would also not be in conflict with what they previously held to be true.
The most obvious objection to this line would be that the delusional subject does not preface their utterances with ‘it seem to me as though’ or ‘it is like…’. Why doesn’t the delusional subject simply say ‘I have the experience of emotional death’ or ‘I feel dead’ or something a little more like that? This is indeed a tricky problem for the line that they are reporting on their experience. One response might be that these expressions do not convey the sense of conviction that the delusional subject feels. Indeed the subject with depression might start out making claims like this, but if their depression continues untreated they may progress to claiming they are dead. Typically we don’t take pains to distinguish between a claim about reality and a claim about our experience. Typically we don’t need to because they coincide. We don’t say ‘it seems to me as though I am in pain’ because the first half of that just seems redundant. To make it clearer that the subject is attempting to report on their experience rather than a state of the world would also require them to acknowledge the external world. I think the problem is more that their experiences have taken on such an intensity and captured their attentional processes to the point that the world really has fallen out as irrelevant.
If one had lost interest in the nature of reality and instead was only focused on ones anomalous experience then this might conceivably lead to the kinds of delusional utterance that subjects actually make. The problem might not be that they have taken their experience to be veridical when they have rational grounds to doubt. Rather, the problem might be construed as their being fixated on reporting on their experience to the extent that they are playing a different language game, one in which the external world has been disregarded as irrelevant.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 22, 2005, at 19:21:56
In reply to Re: Reports of Experience, posted by alexandra_k on August 22, 2005, at 19:19:51
It is often thought to be a fairly significant problem for models of delusions that consider delusions to be false beliefs about external reality that in most cases delusional subjects do not act in ways in which we would expect them to act were they to literally believe what they are saying. In the Capgras delusion, for instance the delusional subject comes to maintain that someone who is close to them has been replaced by an impostor. We might expect that the delusional subject would attempt to talk to the alleged impostor to see whether they have access to the memories of the original. We might expect them to show some concern as to where the original has got to or concern as to what might have happened to them. Subjects with the Capgras delusion do not attempt to locate the original. They do not contact the relevant authorities to inform them of the disappearance of the original. While we could attempt to attribute all sorts of other beliefs and desires to the delusional subject in order to make these behaviors rational given their delusion and their other beliefs and desires this is not a line that anybody seems to have pursued. Rather, these facts about delusional subjects most often not acting in ways we would expect has been taken to be evidence for their irrationality. It has also led some theorists to consider that delusions may not be appropriately classified as beliefs.
Gregory Currie takes the later line and he attempts to maintain that delusions are not really beliefs rather they are ‘imaginings misidentified as beliefs by the delusional subject’. I am not sure whether this line will help solve the problem of inaction, however, as Tim Bayne has queried ‘what is the difference between believing something to be the case and believing that one believes something to be the case?’ This does seem a little odd and perhaps Curries line is not really enough to solve the problem of inaction. I think that viewing delusions as reports of anomalous experience is able to solve the problem of inaction quite naturally. There wouldn’t seem to be any obvious behavioral consequences for reporting on ones experience.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 22, 2005, at 19:29:07
In reply to Re: The Problem of Inaction, posted by alexandra_k on August 22, 2005, at 19:21:56
For any model that is able to solve the problem of inaction, there is a related problem that arises. Namely, how to account for the relatively few cases where subjects actually do act on their delusions. In an often cited case of this one man became convinced that his step-father was a robot and he decapitated him in order to look for the batteries and microfilm in his head. This seems a very strange thing to do if one is merely attempting to report on ones anomalous experience.
Rather than considering there to be a significant problem with all of the accounts offered thus far I would like to consider whether different models might be better placed to account for the different kinds of cases. It would seem that making a delusional utterance yet not behaving as though one literally believed the world was that way would be best explained by subjects attempting to report on their experiences. Where subjects do act on their delusions, however, then I think that a modified version of Davies et al’s two factor account where we have an anomalous experience rather than a perceptual experience explains the phenomenon quite well.
I would also like to suggest that subjects come to act on their delusions after progressing from reporting on their experiences to mistaking their experiences to be veridical. What this buys us is the notion that the sense of conviction has become similarly misplaced.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 22, 2005, at 19:34:22
In reply to Re: The Problem of Action, posted by alexandra_k on August 22, 2005, at 19:29:07
Treatment Implications
Traditionally it was thought that delusions were not amenable to reason and thus it was pointless to attempt to argue delusional subjects out of their delusion. Fairly recently, however, there has been a move towards offering cognitive therapy as treatment for them. Cognitive therapy is based on the notion that ones thoughts leads to ones emotional responses leads to ones actions. Thus, the paranoid subject does not feel fear and then come to their particular delusional belief in an attempt to explain or make sense of their experience of fear. Rather the notion is that the delusional belief is what is responsible for the person’s experience of fear.
Cognitive therapy attempts to alleviate their experience of fear, for example, by providing counter-evidence to the delusional belief. It is thought that by doing this and by making any contradictions explicit this will weaken the person’s sense of conviction or certainty that the delusion is true. This is thought to have the ultimate consequence of alleviating their experience of fear.
In looking at case reports of interviews with delusional subjects where therapists attempt to apply this line of reasoning to persuade people that their delusions are false I can’t help but wonder whether the therapist and delusional subject aren’t continually talking past each other. One of the main problems they have found with attempting this kind of treatment is that it is hard to build a good rapport between the therapist and the delusional subject and that there are high drop out rates as the delusional subject simply stops going to therapy.
If we grant that delusions are reports of certain kinds of experiences, or at the very least that the sense of conviction or certainty is primary and would be appropriate if associated with the anomalous experience then we may be able to explain why it is that the delusional subject shows such resistance to backing down on their delusional utterances. When people attempt to offer evidence to the contrary they may well be missing the point that the evidence is not relevant as the subject is instead attempting to report on the nature of their experiences.
If we can instead attempt to think our way into the kinds of experiences that may lead to them expressing them in the way in which they do then we may be able to arrive at an understanding of why they insist on their delusional utterance despite everyone attempting to argue them out of their delusion. Rather than by engaging in radical translation to explain how they can believe what they are saying we can engage in radical empathy to understand why they say the things they do.
Perhaps it is as Walkup notes:
The distinction between a description of the experience (sometimes called a phenomenological description) and the description of the factual state of affairs is scientifically and clinically important. Scientifically, a subject who consistently failed to describe the perception of certain illusions would be suspected of some visual or neurological abnormality. Clinically, the therapist who challenges a patient’s description of his or her experience may sound absurd, just as would a vision researcher who insisted to an experimental subject that the two lines in the Muller-Lyer illusion actually look the same length (Walkup, 1995 p. 326).
If the delusional subject is indeed reporting on their experience then they are entitled to a hold onto their experience with certainty. I wonder whether attempts to challenge delusional utterances by trapping subjects in contradiction is what ultimately leads them to endorse contradiction in order for them to retain the certainty about their experience. What might be happening here is an unfortunate state of affairs for the delusional subject who might be hard pressed to find an appropriate alternative expression of their experience. Rather than focusing on the logic of their utterance I wonder whether we might have more luck with attempting to empathize with the subjects anomalous experience. Not with the view to arguing subjects out of their delusions, but with a view to attempting to understand what they might be trying to say. And with the ultimate view of assisting them in finding more appropriate ways of expressing themselves. Rather than attempting to argue them out of their delusion by presenting evidence that is not even relevant to what they are saying one might have more luck with trying to express some empathy for the anomalous experience that they are having.
What I would like to suggest is that regardless of whether the subject actually has made the move from expression of experience to false belief about reality one may be better off establishing rapport by validating the sense of conviction or certainty which is appropriately associated with the subjects anomalous experience. Perhaps the trouble with subjects who have come to false beliefs about external realty on the basis of experience is that they have lost sight of the distinction between appearances and reality by becoming over-focused on their anomalous experience. Davies et al., talk about this as a failure to inhibit believing what they perceive, and it sounds to me that the move from experience to external reality is a lot like the notion that delusional subjects have lost their ability to ‘reality test’. The notion behind reality testing is that one should test ones hypotheses about reality against reality. The delusional subject does not seem to do this and one enumeration of this might be that external reality is irrelevant to the reality of ones experiences, and ones experiential reality is certain. One way to ultimately lose the appearance / reality distinction is to focus on appearances to the point that the external world is completely disregarded. Perhaps what has happened here is that the delusional subject has become lost in appearances being reality where their experiences are sufficiently anomalous.
This line places a heavy explanatory burden on the nature, intensity, and recurrence of the subjects anomalous experience. I think that this line shows better prospects for being able to naturally handle the fact that delusional subjects seem quite certain and are quite insistent on their utterances. It is also able to naturally handle the fact that the majority of delusional subjects do not act in ways in which we would expect were they to believe their utterance to be true of the external world.
It may be that there are two different things that we can construe the delusional subject as doing in making their utterance. We could consider that they are making a false claim about the world, and indeed in some cases I think this might be so. The other way we could go, however, is to consider that they are attempting to express their anomalous experience. The DSM considers that delusions are ‘false beliefs about external reality’ but this seems to beg the question by saying that delusional subjects should be construed as intending to do this. It may be that many subjects who utter claims characteristic of certain kinds of delusions are classified as being delusional and yet they intend their utterance to be a report on their experience. It may be that only when the subject is making a false claim about the world that they are appropriately classified as delusional because this is the way the APA defines delusion to be. We could thus consider that subjects who are reporting on their experience are not in fact delusional because delusions proper involve making a false claim about the world. But the other way we could go is to say that these subjects clearly are delusional and this shows the inadequacy of the APA definition of delusion. It seems that not a lot rests on this linguistic decision. Either way it is interesting that more people do not act on their delusion than people who do. A large class of the utterances that are typically considered to be paradigmatic examples of delusional utterance would seem to be better explained by the report of experience model, and the class of phenomena requiring explanation by a false belief model has been significantly reduced.
Posted by Toph on August 23, 2005, at 7:36:48
In reply to Re: The Cartesian Model of Delusion » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on August 22, 2005, at 17:41:25
> > I hope that this is a delusion, Cartesian or otherwise.
>
> nah. thats why i left pc. 'cause my posts kept being deleted. these kinds of posts. not supportive... or something.
>I thought this was poetry. ; )
Hey, Alex, the Sass you refer to elsewhere, is he the guy who is anti-psyhotherapy or anti-medication or anti-something?
We love you alex, and I'm sure the bloomin' (hehe) admin does too.
Posted by Toph on August 23, 2005, at 9:35:53
In reply to DELETED?!! » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on August 23, 2005, at 7:36:48
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 17:25:27
Sass, Louis Arnorsson (2004) 'Some Reflections on the (Analytic) Philosophical Approach to Delusion' Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 11, 1 Special Issue: Delusions
Can't seem to find a homepage for him. Here is a link to the article (but my access to Muse is via uni subscription)http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/philosophy_psychiatry_and_psychology/v011/11.1sass.pdf
Hes also written a book (or two... which I haven't read...)
I'll be careful to get the links...
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 17:33:12
In reply to ^^ Oops, Thos Szasz ^^, posted by Toph on August 23, 2005, at 9:35:53
I thought I was replying to this thread but my reply ended up in a thread of its own:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20050807/msgs/545765.html
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 17:33:59
In reply to Sass, posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 17:25:27
Sorry... Above a reply to:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20050807/msgs/545592.html
Posted by Damos on August 23, 2005, at 17:39:56
In reply to Re: The Problem of Action, posted by alexandra_k on August 22, 2005, at 19:34:22
Finally read this whole thread through on the way home last night. Was so into it I missed my station on the train and had to let the first bus that came go so I could finish before I got home.
Was this the seminar you delivered a few weeks back? Some of the terminology and stuff had me boggled a bit but I managed to work it out kinda.
I found myself thinking 'oh boy, is she goiing where I think she's going?' and then when I got to Reports of Experience people on the train were looking at me oddly and I realised that the 'YES' I thought I'd only thought had in fact been rather loud - oops :-) From that point on I was just egging you on to go where you were headed. And you did, and you're right, so very right. If you attack me and try to prove me wrong, what's the first thing I'm gonna do? Defend. So what do you get? A war of attrition. The therapist finally says you're not trying - kapow, termination. Or the patient finally gives up and says 'you're not even trying to understand, before you tell me I'm wrong can't you at least try.', so they leave and maybe never go back. It's a lose-lose. If you don't even attempt empathetic understanding how can you ever hope to see how this person sees the world and themself in it. How can you ever hope to see how their view can be true for them. It has to be inside-out. You have to be inside their world to be able to take them by the hand and walk them out.
I really enjoyed this thread so much, Thanks Alex
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 18:11:31
In reply to Finally got to read it all - YAY » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on August 23, 2005, at 17:39:56
:-)
Sass says (paraphrasing here...)
in my opinion philosophers would be better off trying to imagine their way into the patients shoes making every effort to think feel and be like the patient...
And he quotes someone or other talking about Elvin Semrad (who I've never heard of...) paraphrasing again....
the great psychoanalyst elvin semrad could make any psychotic patient sane. by radical empathy making every attempt to think feel and be like the patient he succeeded in entering into their delusional world. he was able to draw them back out.
and what i want to say is... lets grant that thats what he did. lets just grant him that... if that is so then what is the process by which that happened? what does it mean to 'enter into the patients delusional world' - and how does one do that? And how... How on earth are you supposed to go about drawing them back out.
I was working this stuff out while me and Gabbi and Dinah were fighting over the small boards stuff over on admin.
(not to suggest that any of us were delusional lol!)I don't talk about 'treatment implication' stuff very often.. Actually that was the first time I've been so bold. I kind of feel like I don't know what I'm talking about... I'm not a clinician... What the hell do I know...
But then Ive spent a lot of time in hospital / supported accomodation talking and listening... and people talk to me about why they do not talk to their clinicians...
I was thinking of writing another peace on just that latter bit.
:-)
Yeah. Thats the seminar I gave couple weeks ago.
Thanks for taking the time :-)
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 18:30:24
In reply to Finally got to read it all - YAY » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on August 23, 2005, at 17:39:56
>If you don't even attempt empathetic understanding how can you ever hope to see how this person sees the world and themself in it. How can you ever hope to see how their view can be true for them. It has to be inside-out. You have to be inside their world to be able to take them by the hand and walk them out.
Or... You can give them their anti-psychotics and just wait for them to come right... Therapy is more expensive than anti-psychotics... Also... Maybe people are a little afraid... Afraid that they will enter in and get lost themselves. Maybe... Some people lack the ability to empathise with different kinds of anomalous experience. People vary with respect to how they find Sass' 'expression of emotional death' line. Some people (philosophers) don't really seem to be able to get their heads / emotions around that one. They can typically be persuaded via a line that goes 'sometimes we talk *boút the living dead and life beyond death and these notions seem to make sense... But they can't seem to think their way into emotional numbness. Bizzare...I guess another point that I forgot to make:
what do the anti-psychotics do / why do they help?
I want an intentional level explanation not a neurological level explanation.
So... On how delusions are produced.
One could try and say that a neurophysiological anomaly produces a delusion DIRECTLY.
That is just to say that delusions are primary and can't be explained any more from the intentional level (so you would have to talk about varieties of brain damage).
Most people don't like this. They find it deeply implausible that brain damage could lead to... Well... Thought insertion in effect :-)
They consider it much more plausible that:brain damage
then anomalous experience
then cognitive deficit
then delusional belief.so... what do the anti-psychotics do then?
Davies said that his line required the anti-psychotics to remidy the cognitive deficit. He looked a bit tentative when he said that so he may want to change his mind in hindsight...
But to me that sounds implausible.
I want to say that the main problem is the intensity, nature, recurrance, of certain kinds of anomalous expeirnece. what the anti-psychotics do is mute the experience. so it is not as anomalous anymore. so attentional resources are freed up back to the contemplation of reality as well as ones experiences.
and so in the circumscribed delusions arising from head trauma we have a very specific or particular kind of anomalous experience. it is 'telling them' (if you like) something particular.
whereas in the case of schizophrenia where people seem to have retreated into their own solipsistic world... thats because their experiences are much more pervasive...
but meds alter experience.
thats what i reckon.
Posted by Damos on August 23, 2005, at 18:44:48
In reply to Re: Finally got to read it all - YAY » Damos, posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 18:11:31
> I don't talk about 'treatment implication' stuff very often.. Actually that was the first time I've been so bold. I kind of feel like I don't know what I'm talking about... I'm not a clinician... What the hell do I know...
>
> But then Ive spent a lot of time in hospital / supported accomodation talking and listening... and people talk to me about why they do not talk to their clinicians...
>
> I was thinking of writing another peace on just that latter bit.
>
> :-)
>
> Yeah. Thats the seminar I gave couple weeks ago.
>
> Thanks for taking the time :-)It was pleasure. I was excited by it and can't believe they were ho-hum when you delivered it. You really should and must write more about it. Because you have insight, you have the thinking experience and the real experience. Trust your truth, your instincts. Reminds me of that line from A Few Good Men; "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth." And maybe they (the clinicians) can't. But if no-one ever tells them and shows them from inside their world in words they understand, how will we know. If know one opens the window how does fresh air ever get in.
Thank you for being brave.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 19:48:00
In reply to Re: Finally got to read it all - YAY » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on August 23, 2005, at 18:44:48
> can't believe they were ho-hum when you delivered it.
oh. its because nobody here is working on / interested in / knows anything about the topic. so they just follow me along going yup... yup... yup. and don't have a lot to say with respect to critique. it's not supposed to be like that. they're supposed to critique it as hard as they can so i'm forced to improve it and tighten it up and elaborate on the bits that aren't so clear etc. i guess it means i told an okay story, but it doesn't help me at all really...
and they are philosophers at any rate. so it was written with them in mind. thats why i don't explain the technical philosophical terminology but i do explain the psychology / brain stuff. there can be a danger in using technical terms across more than one field... a danger that you will make yourself incomprehensible to everyone and alienate yourself from both fields.
i have to go with what i know...
that means cognitive neuropsychology and intentional explanation.
and with respect to therapy...
that means CBT.
but thats okay... thats okay...
i reckon...
that if you modify linehan slightly...
(take her stuff on finding the inherant grain of wisdom in the clients utterance take her stuff on validation)
then you could get a version of DBT for delusional subjects.
you could even modify skills training...
with respect to social skills (though interpersonal skills are on the agenda already):-)
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 19:58:18
In reply to DELETED?!! » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on August 23, 2005, at 7:36:48
> I thought this was poetry. ; )
yeah. i wonder how supportive poetry is supposed to be... i posted to the creative corner... my philosophical ramblings / ravings were okay but as soon as i started talking about delusions / DID things got removed 'bout as fast as i put them up.
not supportive apparantly.
i think...
some people react before they bother to try and understand.
but im disgruntled...
sorry sorry...but unsupportive and an accusation of plagarism.
charming.
Posted by Damos on August 23, 2005, at 20:40:51
In reply to Re: Finally got to read it all - YAY » Damos, posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 18:11:31
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9385029&dopt=Abstract
http://corppub.iuniverse.com/marketplace/backinprint/0595304117.html
http://www.moshersoteria.com/soteri.htm
He seems to have been rather influential and important.
Posted by Toph on August 23, 2005, at 20:57:36
In reply to Re: DELETED?!!, posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 19:58:18
What could be more unsupportive than deleting something someone has worked hard at creating and which that poster has shared with her friends? I don't know what was explained to you about this highly unusual sanction, alex, but it strikes me that another poster frequently asked to post long expositions on various beliefs and was asked not to by the administrator (if I recall correctly). Perhaps he is trying to be consistent with posts that are not interactive in nature. Just a guess. I like to think that I know a little more about you by what you think is important. But I don't run the park here.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 22:54:10
In reply to Some Semrad Links » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on August 23, 2005, at 20:40:51
> He seems to have been rather influential and important.
Yeah. He's probably said everything I have to say and a lot more besides ;-)
Thanks for the links.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 23:03:25
In reply to UNSUPPORTIVE?!! » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on August 23, 2005, at 20:57:36
>I don't know what was explained to you about this highly unusual sanction, alex,
Precisely what I've told you...
Plus 'official warnings'.>Perhaps he is trying to be consistent with posts that are not interactive in nature.
:-(
I don't mean to be non-interactive...
Comments / criticisms / telling me I'm full of sh*t etc is most welcome.'the purpose of my writing is not to spare other people the trouble of thinking, but rather to stimulate other people to thoughts of their own'
W.
And I'd love to discuss some of those...
>I like to think that I know a little more about you by what you think is important.
Thanks Toph. That means a lot.
>But I don't run the park here.
No. And I don't understand how the park is run...
I tried to understand...
I really really tried.But all I understand is I'm not allowed to make 'those kinds' of posts.
I don't understand what it is about them that is considered unacceptable. When I asked... It just kept on coming back to what I've already said.
But its okay.
It doesn't matter.
I'm happy here.
Though the ironic thing...
Is that I shouldn't really post them
Cause they are a bit identifying...
Posted by Damos on August 23, 2005, at 23:35:29
In reply to Re: Some Semrad Links » Damos, posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 22:54:10
Oh, somehow I doubt that. I have a sneeking suspicion you have something really important to say. Maybe you just haven't found that one thread that brings all the others together yet. That thing that really sparks you, that A-HA moment when you think 'YES, this is what I've been moving toward all these years.' Boy when you do - look out world :-)
Might just buy Semrad: The Heart of a Therapist, it sounds kinda interesting.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 23:48:56
In reply to Re: Some Semrad Links » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on August 23, 2005, at 23:35:29
What one typically finds... Is that everything one could think up... Has been said before. Its just applying it to something where nobody has done that before. Or something like that. Its kind of a mixed blessing to read something and you think 'hey! thats my idea!' Its disillusioning at times that someone else thought of it first. But then its validating too. And sometimes there are critiques of their view that your version can avoid, or you can try and defend their version against subsequent attacks or whatever.
And its a game... Its just a crazy game... I just need to work (a lot) on my style.
(Though I think I should be forgiven for that in that last effort which is more a draft than anything else because I was too busy babbling...)
;-)> Might just buy Semrad: The Heart of a Therapist, it sounds kinda interesting.
Yeah. It did look interesting.
I started reading Sass' book on delusions (well, what was available via amazon) and that looked interesting too...Its just that Sass is more continentally inclined. He's quite harsh on analytic philosophy. About it creating false dichotomies / problems. About philosophers being theory driven rather than case study driven. But... what am i supposed to do????? <whine>
Posted by zenhussy on August 30, 2005, at 22:11:57
In reply to Re: UNSUPPORTIVE?!! » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2005, at 23:03:25
ah grasshopper...you appear to have answered your own questions in another post here:
"Regardless of what one intended one has to accept the consequences of ones behaviour / actions.
Because the consequences of the response affect the future probability of similar responses.
Maybe because one learns to think before responding.
Harder to do when you are in a bit of a state
But its one way to learn."
yep, there are many ways to learn. your writings are interesting as always.
__zh
Posted by alexandra_k on August 31, 2005, at 5:57:44
In reply to Re: UNSUPPORTIVE?!! » alexandra_k, posted by zenhussy on August 30, 2005, at 22:11:57
> ah grasshopper...you appear to have answered your own questions in another post here:
> "Regardless of what one intended one has to accept the consequences of ones behaviour / actions.But I don't understand why my writing was followed by the negative consequences (deletion and warnings).
I don't understand what was wrong with posting it.
> Because the consequences of the response affect the future probability of similar responses.
>
> Maybe because one learns to think before responding.
>
> Harder to do when you are in a bit of a state
>
> But its one way to learn."
>
> yep, there are many ways to learn. your writings are interesting as always.
>
> __zh
>
>
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Writing | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.