«Nothing is like it seems, but everything is exactly like it is»
— Yogi Berra
— Yogi Berra
❤3🕊1
Forwarded from железноголовый
«Nothing can ever be reduced to anything»
— Joseph Needham
«Everything is what it is and not another thing»
— Ludwig Wittgenstein (probably from sermon by Joseph Butler)
— Joseph Needham
«Everything is what it is and not another thing»
— Ludwig Wittgenstein (probably from sermon by Joseph Butler)
👍1🕊1
чугунные тетради
evidence-based practice 🥱 practice-based evidence 🤩
«In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.»
— Yogi Berra
— Yogi Berra
🕊6👍1💯1
чугунные тетради
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…
Постепенно пишу конспект книги Sanneke de Haan “Enactive Psychiatry”. Это философия психиатрии, вопрос здесь о том, что такое психиатрические расстройства, каковы их аспекты и причины. Что такое психиатрические проблемы — вопрос гораздо более сложный и странный, чем может показаться сначала. Ответы на этот вопрос многочисленны, противоречивы и запутанны. Хороший, практически полезный ответ позволяет из проблемы (что не так?) сделать задачу (что делать?).
У нас есть множество разрозненных ответов на эти вопросы. И целый ворох идей и свидетельств: красочных картинок нейровизуализации, детальных феноменологических описаний, и в разной степени правдоподобных предположений о психологических взаимосвязях. В качестве предполагаемых “причин” мы рассматриваем психологическую травму, межличностный и “внутренний” конфликты, нарушение ранней привязанности, социокультурный контекст, экзистенциальные заботы человека, (нейро)физиологический или генетический сбой.
То есть дело не в том, что у нас нет полезных ответов, а в том, что их много, и они даются с совсем разных точек зрения. Хорошо бы учитывать все эти перспективы, понимать, как они соотносятся между собой, и с какого ракурса стоит смотреть на эти вопросы в каждом конкретном случае.
Говоря коротко, но непонятно: по этому поводу де Хаан предлагает проект энактивистской психиатрии. Энактивизм это более менее теория сознания (“воплощённое познание” и тд) с корнями в феноменологии, что мне симпатично.
https://ironhead.id/dehaan-enactive-psychiatry-1
#id_books
У нас есть множество разрозненных ответов на эти вопросы. И целый ворох идей и свидетельств: красочных картинок нейровизуализации, детальных феноменологических описаний, и в разной степени правдоподобных предположений о психологических взаимосвязях. В качестве предполагаемых “причин” мы рассматриваем психологическую травму, межличностный и “внутренний” конфликты, нарушение ранней привязанности, социокультурный контекст, экзистенциальные заботы человека, (нейро)физиологический или генетический сбой.
То есть дело не в том, что у нас нет полезных ответов, а в том, что их много, и они даются с совсем разных точек зрения. Хорошо бы учитывать все эти перспективы, понимать, как они соотносятся между собой, и с какого ракурса стоит смотреть на эти вопросы в каждом конкретном случае.
Говоря коротко, но непонятно: по этому поводу де Хаан предлагает проект энактивистской психиатрии. Энактивизм это более менее теория сознания (“воплощённое познание” и тд) с корнями в феноменологии, что мне симпатично.
https://ironhead.id/dehaan-enactive-psychiatry-1
#id_books
🔥5🕊1
Giovanni Stanghellini. Lost in dialogue: anthropology, psychopathology and care
—
«The need and the desire to be recognized as an individual person, and as part of a human society, to be accepted, respected, forgiven, and loved is a fundamental disposition in human existence — as well as eating and staying alive. My existence is conditioned and articulated by the value of social recognition alongside the organic values of my biological life. […]
the essence of human existence is the tragic awareness of the fragility of the reciprocal recognition. This thesis builds on and extends a distinctly Jaspersian statement: the essence of man is the tragic awareness of the inaccessibility of the Other. […]
To become (and remain) a ‘healthy’ person, I need to be recognized by the others. I need the others to recognize me in my being-so, that is, in my otherness with respect to them, and at the same time I need their acknowledgement of the value of the otherness that I am. Also, to establish ‘healthy’ relationships, within which I can feel recognized by the Other, I need to be able to recognize the otherness of the Other — and this, we have seen, is not an easy task. Thus, recognition is at the same time a necessary precondition for mental health, as well as for the ‘good life’, and an extremely difficult achievement. Non-recognition, in milder or more severe forms, is the norm and not the exception in human life.»
—
«The need and the desire to be recognized as an individual person, and as part of a human society, to be accepted, respected, forgiven, and loved is a fundamental disposition in human existence — as well as eating and staying alive. My existence is conditioned and articulated by the value of social recognition alongside the organic values of my biological life. […]
the essence of human existence is the tragic awareness of the fragility of the reciprocal recognition. This thesis builds on and extends a distinctly Jaspersian statement: the essence of man is the tragic awareness of the inaccessibility of the Other. […]
To become (and remain) a ‘healthy’ person, I need to be recognized by the others. I need the others to recognize me in my being-so, that is, in my otherness with respect to them, and at the same time I need their acknowledgement of the value of the otherness that I am. Also, to establish ‘healthy’ relationships, within which I can feel recognized by the Other, I need to be able to recognize the otherness of the Other — and this, we have seen, is not an easy task. Thus, recognition is at the same time a necessary precondition for mental health, as well as for the ‘good life’, and an extremely difficult achievement. Non-recognition, in milder or more severe forms, is the norm and not the exception in human life.»
чугунные тетради
Giovanni Stanghellini. Lost in dialogue: anthropology, psychopathology and care — «The need and the desire to be recognized as an individual person, and as part of a human society, to be accepted, respected, forgiven, and loved is a fundamental disposition…
Giovanni Stanghellini. Lost in dialogue: anthropology, psychopathology and care
—
«To consider phenomenology as a purely denoscriptive science of the way the world appears to the experiencing subject is a serious mistake, although it is true that phenomenology sponsors a kind of seeing that relates to something already there, rather than to what stands before, beyond, or behind what is existent. “Making the invisible visible” can instead be taken as the motto of phenomenology, just as it was the passion that possessed many of the artists of the twentieth century and the intellectual motor of the major scientists of the “invisible century”, including Einstein and Freud, in their search for hidden universes (Panek, 2005).
Phenomenology shares with Modernism, and with the Zeitgeist of the twentieth century, a passion for the invisible, and a sceptical stance towards the way things are seen in the natural attitude, that is, in straightforward cognition. It sponsors a sui generis kind of seeing — enlightening the enigmatic poetry of familiar things. But, especially in its hermeneutic coté, it is also resolutely tied to hearing and the spoken word since— as Gadamer (2004, p. 458) has acknowledged — “the primacy of hearing is the basis for the hermeneutical phenomenon”.»
—
«To consider phenomenology as a purely denoscriptive science of the way the world appears to the experiencing subject is a serious mistake, although it is true that phenomenology sponsors a kind of seeing that relates to something already there, rather than to what stands before, beyond, or behind what is existent. “Making the invisible visible” can instead be taken as the motto of phenomenology, just as it was the passion that possessed many of the artists of the twentieth century and the intellectual motor of the major scientists of the “invisible century”, including Einstein and Freud, in their search for hidden universes (Panek, 2005).
Phenomenology shares with Modernism, and with the Zeitgeist of the twentieth century, a passion for the invisible, and a sceptical stance towards the way things are seen in the natural attitude, that is, in straightforward cognition. It sponsors a sui generis kind of seeing — enlightening the enigmatic poetry of familiar things. But, especially in its hermeneutic coté, it is also resolutely tied to hearing and the spoken word since— as Gadamer (2004, p. 458) has acknowledged — “the primacy of hearing is the basis for the hermeneutical phenomenon”.»
🕊2
Giovanni Stanghellini. Lost in dialogue: anthropology, psychopathology and care
—
«There is also […] mode of vulnerability, typical of […] ‘borderline existence’. The kind of simplification of the teleology of desire that we find here […] lies in the glorification of an oceanic encounter with the Other, an encounter that a certain rhetoric would define as ‘authentic’, in the sense that it takes place outside of the social roles: the mystical encounter of a flesh with another flesh, of a thrilled flesh with another thrilled flesh. Emotions, for such a vulnerable mode of existence, represent life in its purest form. Any other form of encounter is seen as a fall. […]
This form of existence postulates the encounter as immediacy, and not as a patient approach. Being authentically with the Other implies a drastic aut aut: ‘Love me or kill me’. It desires and demands exactly the same impossibility that originally made it fly away in desperation: the encounter as an opportunity for recognition. Recognition by the Other is the basic need in this type of vulnerable existence. This fixed idea, this value that drives the borderline existence itself, undoubtedly opens the gates of perhaps the fieriest relational hell that we could possibly imagine — a burning hell of desire, expectation, and disappointment.»
—
«There is also […] mode of vulnerability, typical of […] ‘borderline existence’. The kind of simplification of the teleology of desire that we find here […] lies in the glorification of an oceanic encounter with the Other, an encounter that a certain rhetoric would define as ‘authentic’, in the sense that it takes place outside of the social roles: the mystical encounter of a flesh with another flesh, of a thrilled flesh with another thrilled flesh. Emotions, for such a vulnerable mode of existence, represent life in its purest form. Any other form of encounter is seen as a fall. […]
This form of existence postulates the encounter as immediacy, and not as a patient approach. Being authentically with the Other implies a drastic aut aut: ‘Love me or kill me’. It desires and demands exactly the same impossibility that originally made it fly away in desperation: the encounter as an opportunity for recognition. Recognition by the Other is the basic need in this type of vulnerable existence. This fixed idea, this value that drives the borderline existence itself, undoubtedly opens the gates of perhaps the fieriest relational hell that we could possibly imagine — a burning hell of desire, expectation, and disappointment.»
🕊2🔥1
чугунные тетради
Giovanni Stanghellini. Lost in dialogue: anthropology, psychopathology and care — «There is also […] mode of vulnerability, typical of […] ‘borderline existence’. The kind of simplification of the teleology of desire that we find here […] lies in the glorification…
“glorification of a thrilled flesh”, ничего себе, “opens the gates of perhaps the fieriest relational hell that we could possibly imagine — a burning hell of desire, expectation, and disappointment”
🕊2🔥1
чугунные тетради
Giovanni Stanghellini. Lost in dialogue: anthropology, psychopathology and care — «There is also […] mode of vulnerability, typical of […] ‘borderline existence’. The kind of simplification of the teleology of desire that we find here […] lies in the glorification…
Giovanni Stanghellini. Lost in dialogue: anthropology, psychopathology and care
—
«[in borderline existence] The absence of the Other makes the presence of the self impossible. The Other’s absence, or incomplete presence, is often the reason for feelings of un-recognition and desperate loss of selfhood. The absent Other, or the Other who does not donate his entire self, is an abandoning Other and an inauthentic Other. The Other is a partner with whom both loyalty and spontaneity are expected. The bonds of loyalty and the promise of reciprocal care must be accompanied by its antonym: spontaneity, that is, being free from social conventions and acting according to the logics of desire in the present moment. Borderline persons feel these as standard, basic aspirations — but we all know how unrealistic and almost unattainable they can be.
Since the otherness of the Other cannot be grasped, possessed, or known, the good outcome of the relation with the Other expresses itself as a kind of failure. Yet this failure is intolerable to the borderline person (as it is to the majority). The way one approaches one’s failure determines what one will become (Jaspers, 2003, p. 22). The borderline person, so to say, flies too high for her capacity to approach her failure. Her type of desire is apparently an iconoclastic one, since it does not accept any sort of compromise and is intolerant of any kind of reduction of the I – You relationship to an encounter situated within the limitations of each partner’s subjectivity. […]
What the borderline person idealizes is not the Other, but Love itself. It is a mystification of the failure in grasping the Other, overwritten with the jargon of authenticity. It celebrates immediateness as a reality, rather than as a task that can never be fully accomplished. It tends to block the autonomy of the Other while it inauthentically worships an ‘authentic’ relationship. It fulfils the visceral need for recognition with a heroic and empty claim for absolute communion. And, finally, it makes the non-avoidable discord between the partners into the trauma of abandonment of which she considers herself to be the only victim.»
—
«[in borderline existence] The absence of the Other makes the presence of the self impossible. The Other’s absence, or incomplete presence, is often the reason for feelings of un-recognition and desperate loss of selfhood. The absent Other, or the Other who does not donate his entire self, is an abandoning Other and an inauthentic Other. The Other is a partner with whom both loyalty and spontaneity are expected. The bonds of loyalty and the promise of reciprocal care must be accompanied by its antonym: spontaneity, that is, being free from social conventions and acting according to the logics of desire in the present moment. Borderline persons feel these as standard, basic aspirations — but we all know how unrealistic and almost unattainable they can be.
Since the otherness of the Other cannot be grasped, possessed, or known, the good outcome of the relation with the Other expresses itself as a kind of failure. Yet this failure is intolerable to the borderline person (as it is to the majority). The way one approaches one’s failure determines what one will become (Jaspers, 2003, p. 22). The borderline person, so to say, flies too high for her capacity to approach her failure. Her type of desire is apparently an iconoclastic one, since it does not accept any sort of compromise and is intolerant of any kind of reduction of the I – You relationship to an encounter situated within the limitations of each partner’s subjectivity. […]
What the borderline person idealizes is not the Other, but Love itself. It is a mystification of the failure in grasping the Other, overwritten with the jargon of authenticity. It celebrates immediateness as a reality, rather than as a task that can never be fully accomplished. It tends to block the autonomy of the Other while it inauthentically worships an ‘authentic’ relationship. It fulfils the visceral need for recognition with a heroic and empty claim for absolute communion. And, finally, it makes the non-avoidable discord between the partners into the trauma of abandonment of which she considers herself to be the only victim.»
🔥1🕊1
Giovanni Stanghellini. Lost in dialogue: anthropology, psychopathology and care
—
«Clinicians know that when a patient says that he is bored of repeating his own story over and over again this may be the prelude to a change. The patient who is bored of the story he used to tell the clinician (and every person) is on the point of accepting being decentred. […]
Usually, in a clinical context, surprise is wished for as much as it is feared. In telling my story I come to the point at which I realize that it is not my story. […]
Where narrativity ends, intimacy may begin.»
—
«Clinicians know that when a patient says that he is bored of repeating his own story over and over again this may be the prelude to a change. The patient who is bored of the story he used to tell the clinician (and every person) is on the point of accepting being decentred. […]
Usually, in a clinical context, surprise is wished for as much as it is feared. In telling my story I come to the point at which I realize that it is not my story. […]
Where narrativity ends, intimacy may begin.»
❤4🕊2