Whose Recovery?

[Rorschach]

Yes I understand that looking glass ... its a long time since I have directivly walked there .. but it is easy to slip in and out once you walk that path ... somtimes without noticing ...

.. I oftern wonder if I should go back there and not come back ... it would be easy.. it just that snap back I could never over come ....

My guess is that it's not one other place and/or time, perhaps myriad, fractals, geometry? I think the human mind has the capacity to grasp it, but to communicate it? To do so without garnering strange looks? To see all those worlds like a double (or to the powers) exposure, and find a way of managing the mundane? A tough task indeed.

I guess what I was talking about when I mentioned balance, was somehow to coexist in all the possible realities, rather than flipping between them?

[iffybob]

To exist in all time and space .. but chose where to focus your gaze ....

.. or the echos of all things exist because they never truely fade .... you just want to have to percieve them ...

... if you cant focus and could see all at once ..... that would be an insanity .. I dont think even I could bare that ...

[Apotheosis]

I guess what I was talking about when I mentioned balance, was somehow to coexist in all the possible realities, rather than flipping between them?

Possible I think.

[Rorschach]

... if you cant focus and could see all at once ..... that would be an insanity .. I dont think even I could bare that ...

Well it wouldn't have to be seeing 'all at once' just more than you were capable to bear; that was very much the case with my psychosis. I think the knack might be not to try to focus and fail, just let it 'wash' over you and 'be'.

I presume there's a knack to it, but you certainly aren't going to learn about it from psychiatry.

[iffybob]

The whole thing would make psychiatry and sciences head explode .. be niceto watch though ...

I suppose yu could let it wash ove you like music .. and just try and focus on a single sound or instrument .....
.. you could easly miss the tune though ...

[Rorschach]

The whole thing would make psychiatry and sciences head explode .. be niceto watch though ...

All more the reason to step through the looking glass; nobody monitors what you get up to, as it's just a story.

[iffybob]

yep .. nice talking .. my bed time .. laters ... boB ...

[rasselas]

Which bit Mark?

I can't get my head around the whole sentence.

The first thing that sprang to mind in reply to this was 'He wobbled, lost his balance, then recovered'. Perhaps 'deficiency' conjures up images of ideas such as untermensch, certainly hard to take as value free when used in regards to psychiatry, but I wonder truly how many psychiatrists consider patients their equals. So for this reason I'm gonna stick with the concept of deficiency. Evolutionary models place a continuum with the primitive at one end and modernity at the other. The same has been done with insanity in relation to sanity, in fact the relationship has directly been made between

nature : culture
primitive : modern
savage : civilised
madness : sanity

I've thought it was a gift since I was 8 (about 14 years prior to diagnosis), it has however caused me no end of trouble. I am the master of causing (sometimes) unintended dissonance.

Now you've explained it like that, I understand you. And I agree with you, in terms of psychiatry. Although the recovery movement, to my mind, work outisdes of the constraints of psychiatric orthodoxy. Good example is Ron Coleman's team at Working to Recovery. Their work with voice hearers is inclusive - you can frame the phenomena how ever you desire. Recovery is finding a way to live with them, to recover control.

However, I take back what I said about your framing of your unique mind as a gift as a form of recovery. That was presumptious of me now you've explained you've held that idea since long before the psychiatrists started to cast their dark shadow over you.

I think I understand where you're coming from now. Correct me if I'm wrong. You reject recovery models on the basis that they suggest a recovery from a deficiency, like you've restored some previous brain or thnking state prior to having a problem? Whereas maintenence, including psychiatric maintenance, makes more sense to you because it accepts that you are who you are, though requiring drugs to maintain some liveable level of sanity?

If that is so, it conflicts with what I think I know of recovery models, in that they also accept you for who you are, although to a greater orf lesser degree reject the idea you have a brain disease - and offer the hopeful idea that you can learn how better to emotionally and practically live with your personal, individual phenomena... so you recover from bad habits, from emotional dysregulation, from repeated negative patterns, from habituated and self-defeating responses to stress, etc etc

It isn't saying: recovery is you no longer have problems, phenomena, difficulties; it's about I suppose recovering control and replacing looping dysfunctional patterns with freer, functional ones.

This isn't expressed very well. If it's too garbled I'll happily clarify.

[Rorschach]

Now you've explained it like that, I understand you. And I agree with you, in terms of psychiatry. Although the recovery movement, to my mind, work outisdes of the constraints of psychiatric orthodoxy. Good example is Ron Coleman's team at Working to Recovery. Their work with voice hearers is inclusive - you can frame the phenomena how ever you desire. Recovery is finding a way to live with them, to recover control.

(See bold) There's an idea that any idea ultimately contains it's opposite. Thus even ideas seemingly opposite to psychiatry juxtapose themself to it, and by doing so are permeated by the ideas despite best efforts.

I think that's why I reject both psychiatric understandings and recovery models.

However, I take back what I said about your framing of your unique mind as a gift as a form of recovery. That was presumptious of me now you've explained you've held that idea since long before the psychiatrists started to cast their dark shadow over you.

I think I understand where you're coming from now. Correct me if I'm wrong. You reject recovery models on the basis that they suggest a recovery from a deficiency, like you've restored some previous brain or thnking state prior to having a problem? Whereas maintenence, including psychiatric maintenance, makes more sense to you because it accepts that you are who you are, though requiring drugs to maintain some liveable level of sanity?

More or less. To be honest I actually resent the prohibition/control of drugs. I'd quite like to just discuss my condition and requirements with a local pharmacist and get the drugs I decided I need, neuropharmacological/therapeutic or otherwise. I'd rather not have to discuss my medication with a doctor, I'm quite able to work out which medication regime works best for me, whether that be by researching them and how they work, to taking them.

If that is so, it conflicts with what I think I know of recovery models, in that they also accept you for who you are, although to a greater orf lesser degree reject the idea you have a brain disease - and offer the hopeful idea that you can learn how better to emotionally and practically live with your personal, individual phenomena... so you recover from bad habits, from emotional dysregulation, from repeated negative patterns, from habituated and self-defeating responses to stress, etc etc

It isn't saying: recovery is you no longer have problems, phenomena, difficulties; it's about I suppose recovering control and replacing looping dysfunctional patterns with freer, functional ones.

This isn't expressed very well. If it's too garbled I'll happily clarify.

Nope, quite clear