Senneke de Haan. Enactive Psychiatry

Говоря коротко, но непонятно: де Хаан предлагает проект энактивистской психиатрии. Книжка очень хорошая и понятная! (насколько это возможно для такой литературы), и подход мне очень симпатичен, и сама она умница. Мечтаю когда-нибудь написать хоть сколько-то развернутый отзыв.

Есть вот хорошее интервью Аваиса Афтаба с ней. И его же рецензия на книгу.

Толково про диагностку (и диагнозы). До книги — Stijn Vanheule. Psychiatric Diagnosis Revisited — все никак не доберусь, но выглядит очень интересно.

«Discussion with Stijn Vanheule on issues with the scientific status of classificatory psychiatric diagnosisand its reductionist impact on discussions about mental health problems in the general public. During this session we also address how psychoanalytic case-by-case construction provides a relevant alternative to this.»

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KGOFvCCRx0

Люди творят такие зверства, что зверям и не снилось. Знать бы еще какие звери сны видят. В смысле, что снилось зверям, или хотя бы каким. Может какие звери, такие и сны. Может и мир только лишь сон, как мистики учат. Может сон, а чей — непонятно. Мой или какого-то особого зверя, или, вдруг, бога. Хотя это тоже может не важно, какая разница чей, главное — сон. (С.о.н. — субъект-объектное недоразумение, неразрывность своего и иного). А что если, да, мир только сон, но ничего другого нет. Все уже вот оно — здесь, некуда просыпаться.

«"I just can't understand how anyone could think [opinion shared by hundreds of millions]”.

Congratulations, you have a common form of mind-blindness caused by ideological insularity. Don't worry, help is on the way, you can get better, let's get started.

"But won't understanding my enemies make it harder to crush them, what if I start liking them”.

On the contrary, understanding one's enemies is a vital first step on the path to getting their necks under your jackboots, forever. Developing feelings is rare!

What you're currently lacking is a theory of mind about your enemies, which means you are frequently surprised when their behavior contradicts your model of them. That's no fun, nobody likes being wrong constantly

So let's get better, progress through the stages with me

Level 1: "They're crazy"

Now, many people are in fact crazy, let's not discount this idea. But as a proportion of the population, it can't practically go much higher than 10% or so. Meanwhile your enemy comprises almost half the population, try harder

Level 2: "They're evil (racist, xenophobic, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic)"

This is better, you're now attributing agency to your enemy. But this explanation explains too much, it could be used to discount almost any opinion a person has as irrational. Try harder

Level 3, "They don't know any better, they vote against their own interests, what's the matter with Kansas"

Congratulations, you are now a mistake theorist, you believe that your enemies are like you, but had the misfortune to be raised wrong, or exposed to the wrong information

This is a very juicy and satisfying local maximum in the theory of mind space, and many people are happy to spend their whole lives here. It has a lot offer: compassion for your enemies, a smug sense of superiority, and a path forward: just teach them the error of their ways!

Unfortunately, those stuck at level 3 are just as frustrated over time as those stuck at level 1 or 2. They are better at predicting their enemy's behavior, but are continually frustrated by their seeming inability to change it. What level of corrective propaganda might succeed?

Level 4: "It's the economic conditions (no really!), they're desperate"

You have acknowledged that there may be actual material concerns your enemies have that you do not, and that this might influence their opinions on the matter. This is a big admission by you, nice work. This level is also quite satisfying to inhabit, you can hang out here for decades

[…]

But level 4 is in most ways just an extension of level 3, a more advanced form of mistake theory. You still believe that your enemy is hurting themselves in their pain and confusion. You have yet to ascribe true agency to them

Level 5: "Oh, they want different things than I do"

Congratulations, you are now a conflict theorist, you acknowledge that your enemies might not be crazy or evil or misinformed, but actually, legitimately prefer a different kind of life or society than you do

Now what?

One tempting move is to wrap back around to level 2: since your enemy has different (wrong) values, this means they're essentially evil, nice! […]

At this level, you might understand both your enemy and *yourself* better. In introspecting what you wish to be done about the problem of people who don't share your values, you learn things.

Some people, at this level, begin to understand that they don't actually like pluralism. People reeling on the threshold of level 5 are likely to share this trio of garbage comics to soothe the dissonance they feel about realizing they are intolerant of people who disagree with them

It's possible to bite down hard on either bullet here:

1) My enemies are actually different, so I must crush them
2) My enemies are actually different, so I must live with them

One of these options is vastly more satisfying, obviously»

— kitten_beloved

Почему для Лакана психоанализ – это прежде всего этика? Почему этика психоанализа не сводится к кодексам профессиональной честности? Как Лакан относился к Аристотелю, Бентаму и Канту? Почему этика Лакана – это этика ставки на худшее? Об этом и многом другом в нашем подкасте об этике психоанализа.

https://youtu.be/acD3UqjnXw4