13

bullshit spirituality vs genuine spirituality through solidarity

Submitted by TimmyCatChores in RadMentalHealth

Psychological needs can only be filled collectively. The liberal mental-health narrative focused on individuals is bogus. It puts the onus for mental health on the individual, while ignoring the fact that the system makes people psychotic.

A radical movement would be to become the mental health support system the country does not have.

--

"it’s in vogue these days to teach meditation as a practice to help people become more compassionate. It’s also fashionable to turn to scientific research on the human brain to see what neurological factors may be inhibiting compassion.

While these approaches are not without their benefits, their focus on the individual does not address the larger systemic issues that Marshall refers to time and time again. The fact that people learn to manage and lower their reactive impulses during stressful moments does little to change the dehumanizing effects of the culture itself. It merely makes for a less reactive and more accommodating population.

It may in fact be just what the “systemic machine” wants .. for people learn how to self soothe in the midst of an increasingly dehumanizing regime."

http://www.rachellelamb.com/blog/keeping-marshall-rosenbergs-work-alive

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

9

amongstclouds wrote

Meditation on Mediation: Direct Experience as Spirituality is something I shared over in f/Zenarchism not too long ago and might be of some interest in this discussion.

I think you are wrong in the idea that psychological needs can only be met with collectivity. The 'collective' is nothing more than the shared ideas and beliefs of Unique individuals in their own separate, but not exclusive paths through life. Many of the problems we face today are indeed caused by society and civilization through rampant alienation and more stress than we can really pinpoint, but to ignore the needs of the individual is ultimately what lead us here, to begin with.

There is a synthesis to be found in collectivist and individualistic strains of thought and neither is more important than the other.

1

TimmyCatChores wrote

Disagree 100%.

Just look at the difference between the previous hominids and us. It's just a little bump in cognition. If it was a bigger bump, it wouldn't have taken 300,000 to create atomic bombs and iPhones, etc.

The nature of humanity is collectivist 100%.

Mama turtle lays eggs on a beach and the newborns need to fend for themselves. That's individualism. Individualism is being locked in a closet at age three and kept from a collective upbringing.

Try to imagine being born into a tribal culture in Brazil. They exists and are awesome.

You may have the same body, but you would not be the same person.

Who you are is contingent on where you are.

Start with the collectivist on top, then understand the self.

4

amongstclouds wrote

We'll have to agree to disagree. I can tell right now we fundamentally disagree on very basic components of reality, but this isn't to say we don't have similar goals.

1

TimmyCatChores wrote

Could you explain what I'm missing?

5

amongstclouds wrote

Individualism doesn't negate the collective, but the collective can erase individuals as history will show again and again and again. This doesn't mean we need to choose either between the encouragement of individual growth or for the good of the community because how do you even begin to do that without exploiting people in the process?

Every instance of alienation and it's effect on the society at large is still affecting Unique beings that are indeed manipulated by their environment, and also perform the manipulation simultaneously. Every interaction between two independent minds is important because without attempting to understand the relation between them how can we begin to really fix anything?

I'm just asking you to understand that logic has its pitfalls and to think that something is 100% one way is inherently oppressive. Human nature is just a convenient excuse for not really understanding our day-to-day interactions with each other and the world around us.

The mind likes to create its own little State with which to dictate what it wants everything to be. Liberation begins with you as the individual actively seeking to break old habits and form new connections with reality.

2

WindTalk wrote (edited )

I agree the whole framing is simplistic. You are raised dependent on your parents, if you can't see there is a path of individuality that requires you to be self-aware and break free from your parents language, thinking, teaching, religion, etc.

the collective can erase individuals as history will show again and again and again

That's how I see it too. Freedom and liberty don't have a great track record with humanity when it comes to spirituality movements and ideas. History shows again and again that people claimed that their view was for the entire planet, but once travel and telecommunications became standard - we found that ideas of spirituality were much more like languages - regional. Converting between spiritual systems has often proven both violent and crushing toward dissenting individuals. The most recent large-scale progress has been to identify violence itself as an objective to eliminate from group behaviors, but it surely has not been widely adopted by populations.

1

TimmyCatChores wrote

Also, 1. do you think social justice activism takes solidarity?

Solidarity is intrinsically collective.

  1. Where do people get justice from, if not collectively?
3

amongstclouds wrote

Yeah, solidarity is a collective agreement... among individuals.

1

TimmyCatChores wrote

yeah, that's the point. We can only create autonomy for the individual collectively.

We need a certain volume of shared beliefs specifically to understand how we fill each others psychological needs.

It's a matter of being on the same page about social psychology.

If you think your needs are different from other humans, let me know why.

We all get different experience, but we all have the same needs.

4

Pop wrote

Pretty sure that just saying that we have the same needs is ableist

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

Is saying we all breath oxygen abelist, and that we all eat food is abelist?

Have have psychological needs. google it. Don't be afraid of social science.

Words either mean things or they don't.

We have human brains. We aren't all different species or whatever we think we are.

There is objective reality to human existence.

Don't be afraid of the truth, because truth serves the people.

3

Pop wrote

Humans have more and more varied needs than that

Also, regarding the human, this is a great short reading. Even though it is applied to law.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

I'd like to know if you think a children can live in a closet by themselves without human interaction. That's a universal need.

I'd like to know if you think children can live without education, because that's also a universal need, that is only provided collectively in humanity.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

yeah, I understand positionality, but your seem to think all human brains are different.

I'm not sure of the scope of relevance here.

Are we talking about human brains as the scope of attention?

At that point we're talking about what all human brains needs.

I get the gist that you don't see the basic function of the brain is the same for all humans.

If you disagree, I'd like to read the rationalization.

3

amongstclouds wrote

I just really love and respect myself. I hope that doesn't sound snarky, but your line of thinking is borderline authoritarian so I will remain skeptical out of my own self-interest.

It's easy to think ALL of our needs are the same, but we don't all share the same mind.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

How would you define dignity?

Dignity is something only the culture can afford you.

That's dependent on your position. In other words where any one individual winds-up in society.

Wherever you are in in the 'positionally', you're going to want dignity.

We need to be on the same page about that since we're all looking for the same thing.

5

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

Yeah, no, I totally like the article you shared, but I don't care about your moralism. You wish to dictate other people's lives in disregard to their unique individuality and try to hide it behind 'human nature' and 'dignity' which literally mean nothing. It's a little reactionary if you ask me.

As I said, we fundamentally disagree on plenty of things, but we're still pushing in somewhat similar directions. <3

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

You are calling me authoritarian for asking questions?

Do you follow a specific form of psychology?

I don't know where you are coming from at all.

You seem to not be able to explain yourself.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

it's basic psychology. psychological needs.

this is the mental health forum

5

amongstclouds wrote

Yes, and great job reducing peoples unique experience to 'bullshit' in comparison to your authoritarian desire to dictate what those individuals should be thinking.

Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

I don't know what you think because you won't explain yourself.

What is your expertise in this forum?

3

amongstclouds wrote

Are you in a forum about Radical Mental Health while still committing yourself to dogmatic scientism and merit-based authority? I've explained myself just fine. You just keep bringing up new moralistic terms to try and make me feel lesser than you because you hold some great knowledge I have no access too.

-4

TimmyCatChores wrote

That is fancy talk man, but doesn't say a thing.

You can't prove you know anything about providing mental health support.

This isn't new to me.

Tell me what you know about child-psychology and child development. Tell me something, beside that adolescent right-wing sophistry.

3

amongstclouds wrote

Now you're just being condescending. Have a great day. :)

-4

TimmyCatChores wrote

I knew I would clash with right-wingers here.

5

________deleted wrote

Valuing individualism and collectivism equally doesn't make them rightwing, it just means they're an anarchist.

-3

TimmyCatChores wrote

You just defined an anarchist as one who values individualism and collectivism equally.

Do you think every anarchist on earth will agree with that definition?

3

________deleted wrote

I made no attempt to define every anarchist on Earth, talking in absolutes is ridiculous.

-4

TimmyCatChores wrote

Can you tell me something about mental health?

2

________deleted wrote

Demanding credentials from someone who disagrees with you on the internet isn't very healthy.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

Yeah but, we are talking mental health. That takes some level of experience.

It's not just whatever anyone think it is.

3

________deleted wrote

Most of the people who come to this forum need suppport because of the horrible shit that happens to them. They don't come here to be told they're 'rightwing' and have you demand they prove they're qualified to disagree with you.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

If you disagree, you need to explain yourself.

That's solidarity. You're supposed to be helping me understand why I'm wrong.

4

________deleted wrote (edited )

They repeatedly explained their reasoning but you chose to ignore it and instead kept demanding a different explanation and called them names. I'm starting to think you're trolling.

-2

TimmyCatChores wrote

I'm getting 'tone policed', and no one is on topic whatsoever.

That's right-wing shit.

4

________deleted wrote

You're the one attacking people for disagreeing with you. Rightwing politics have nothing to do with any of this.

-2

TimmyCatChores wrote

You need to give me some idea of what you know about providing mental health support, because that is the topic.

I'm not attacking anyone. I'm here to learn.

3

________deleted wrote

I'm not providing mental health support, I'm intervening after seeing you repeatedly attack someone and creating an unsafe space.

-4

TimmyCatChores wrote

Now you are making false accusations and I'm going to alert the mod.

3

amongstclouds wrote

By all means, alert the mods.

-2

TimmyCatChores wrote

yeah. You're not providing information, you're just trolling me. I don't take that level of discourse. I'm not blocking you, because you should be able to show-up with bullshit.

That's not activism, it's just adolescent nonsense. I'm not having it bud.

2

amongstclouds wrote

Disagreement doesn't equal trolling. You're still doing exactly what you're claiming NOT to be doing. You literally have no room to be in this kind of space.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

This is what I wrote to the admin

TimmyCatChores wrote to falita a few seconds ago

I'm new and would like to know how to deal with attacks. I'd like you to look at my recent thread when you can.

I recognize the problem.

Basically in my experience right-wingers who troll discussions of psychology also don't make pro-feminist and anti-racist arguments generally.

If whatever a right-winger thinks is proper mental health in that forum, I'd just like to know.

Should I just keep banning people who piss me off?

-2

TimmyCatChores wrote

well that's authoritarian! wow!

You still didn't say a thing but gobbledy gook.

That's trolling my thread. It's an insult to me, and activism.

Stop with the adolescent bullshit.

Block me first. I don't take trolls.

1

________deleted wrote

For someone who knows everything there is to know about child psychology, you sure are down on 'adolescents'.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

Block me, or I'll call your ass out now.

You don't know shit about mental health.

you're a phoney

3

[deleted] wrote

-3

TimmyCatChores wrote

I take my words seriously, and I'm going to defend them against nonsense.

I know what I'm looking at. On Facebook I have control of pages and groups.

I recognize the argumentation style, and right-wing psychology. It's like mysticism. That's post-left and egoism, which are really just forms of right-libertarianism posing as anarchism.

They referred to mainstream psychology as Scientism, which is typical of right-libertarian argumentation.

On facebook I separated myself from right-wingers.

This is my first thread in this forum, so I want to figure-out how to deal with this stuff.

3

[deleted] wrote

-2

TimmyCatChores wrote

I'm not here for adolescent banter. I need to know if I need start blocking people.

The shame is idea that "anything anyone says is true" passes for anarchism and social justice activism.

3

leftous wrote

I think you're missing the point here.

We're all here trying to learn from eachother. If you claim to have complete dominion on the truth and respond aggressively to people, you're never going to be able to convince or teach people anything. There are ways to civilly and fairly disagree.

Although I do think the labelling of your ideas as authoritarian was unfounded and unfair. I also think your characterization of anarchist individualism is also unfair. I recommend checking out Emma Goldman's (who is an anarchist known for her blend of collectivist and individualist ideas) explanation where she describes right-wing "rugged individualism" as antithetical to true individualism.

0

TimmyCatChores wrote

If you're going to write this:

"I also think your characterization of anarchist individualism is also unfair"

You need to define "anarchist individualism".

Why do you think your definition is a rule?

This is a problem of subjectivity.

The only way any one learns their identity is through the culture, we can only have our psychological needs filled by other people, and we can only get justice from the system if we act collectively. That's the beginning of collectivism.

Where does "anarchist individualism" fit in that?

3

leftous wrote

I am not saying my version of individualism is a rule, but rather that right-wing individualism ("rugged individualism") is self-contradictory since it oppresses the individual. Anyone who actually values the individual would oppose it. So associating it with anarchist individualism doesn't make sense.

Anarchist individualism on the other hand values free association and self-determination. It opposes the oppression of individuals.

The desirable form of collectivism is one which acknowledges, and doesn't suppress, the individual. So in this sense, individualism can work in concert with collectivism. When the collective is all that matters, and the individual's ability to choose how to live is disregarded, it leads to oppression and harm (psychological and otherwise).

0

________deleted wrote (edited )

Time to ban this troll, mods.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

Why would you demand they ban me, instead of just block me?

That's really reactionary.

I really want to look into who is policing me on my first thread.

I want to know what authority you have over my threads.

It's really toxic bullshit you're posting.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

You didn't say a thing on this thread man.

I wonder if you know anything about anything.

Can I follow you to see what you say about feminism and racism?

I'd like to know where you're coming-from.

If right-wing bullshit is 'good' on Raddle, tell me now.

Ban me, cause I'll leave anyway.

2

________deleted wrote (edited )

Stop calling me "man". I can't ban you, I'm not a mod. You can follow me all you like. "Everyone who has a negative view of my behaviour is a rightwing racist anti-feminist" is shitty second-rate trolling. Stop.

-2

TimmyCatChores wrote

Tell me what I should know about anti-racist activism.

That's what I want to see. I want to know what you believe the function of anti-racist and feminst activism is, to anarchism.

Tell me how to do that right.

What is your interpretation of intersectionality?

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

Fine. Ban me, if this passes for mental health support in this forum.

This is my first thread in this forum, and I want to know what kind of bullshit I need to put up with.

If mental health handled by right-winger, tell me now.

3

amongstclouds wrote

You literally have no room to be pretending to care about mental health.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

Explain your expertise please.

Tell me what I need to know please.

1

amongstclouds wrote

I've already explained myself. Tell me what you want me to say?

-3

TimmyCatChores wrote

What you didn't do is quote me to explain anything I wrote was untrue.

That's not anything like 'left solidarity'.

I should be in argumentation mode, cause that's another forum, but... Prove anything I wrote was untrue. Quote me, and explain why it was wrong.

3

amongstclouds wrote

I literally gave you my explanation. You choose to disregard it because only you can speak the truth obviously. When I first responded back to your request at further elaboration this is how you responded:

"Also, 1. do you think social justice activism takes solidarity?

Solidarity is intrinsically collective.

Where do people get justice from, if not collectively?"

Where did you quote anything from me? Why do you get to demand explanations while not willing to do the same in return?

6

Tequila_Wolf wrote

Interested to hear more about this! I have an avalanche of thoughts for the f/radmentalhealth forum that I've to this day not had the emotional energy to jostle together and express.

4

leftous wrote (edited )

This is something I've thought a lot about as someone who practices spirituality to some degree. I've noticed it a lot in spiritual literature: how to apply 'presence' to your work in sales, meditation for work anxiety, or how to cope with a bad manager.

Johann Hari has been addressing this to some extent, except instead of spirituality he is talking about anti-depressants. These drugs just numb people to the horrors and emptiness of neoliberalism; people becoming sick, anxious, or depressed is a perfectly logical reaction to our current system. Yet capitalists know it's far more profitable to enable and prolong the sickness, then monetize the cure.

Similarly, 'spirituality' has become a commodity that merely helps remove and distract people from the current reality. The irony is that spirituality, when practiced truly, is a state of being highly conscious and aware; being in connection with the universe. Yet it's being used to isolate people into a more serene mindset; a state where you are completely unaware of anything beyond your immediate reality and self.

4

selver wrote (edited )

I agree with the general thrust of your OP, but not the anti-individualism. The mental health field is visciously anti-individual.

I would use the word "atomizing" for what you are describing.

4

[deleted] wrote

2

TimmyCatChores wrote

Yes, we need to look inside ourselves. What you find is that there is no self without others. Our minds are built for social connection, not to be separate.

If you want to prove that to yourself, (assuming ones lives alone) bring a weeks worth of food into your bathroom, bring no company, no music, no books, no phone, and no TV. That's individualism.

Individualism is a fantasy of the ego. It's impossible to fill ones own psychological needs.

Capitalism thrives by disconnecting us. We are no longer filling our needs through solidarity, in the way of 99% of human history in small cultures.

Our minds were built for solidarity, not the contrived idea of a person that ruling-classes have taught since their inception a few thousand years ago.

Look at the solidarity of small tribes. That's how the mind evolved to live. Each member knows how to fill the physical and psychological needs of the entire tribe.

In modern cultures, physical needs are filled with the aid of technology. No one person in modern cultures knows how to fill the physical needs of the entire culture.... there is absolutely no reason that we should not know how to fill each others psychological needs in the way the body demands. The body and mind demand solidarity, or else we get what we see: humanity at war with itself.

4

[deleted] wrote

1

TimmyCatChores wrote

I see your point. If we get a compassionate upbringing, and then get thrown into the kyriarchy, we learn our own style of ego defenses, part of which is creating rationalizations in order to hold on to our own dignity, and avoidance of people.

An introvert learns to live in their heads, which is about creating rationalizations.

I've never called what I do meditation, but I've developed serious rationalizations to defend myself as a compassionate person in a systemically violent culture.

1

[deleted] wrote

0

TimmyCatChores wrote

Thing is, I don't know what meditation is. Everyone seems to have a different story of what it is.

I can get to spiritual feeling through thinking, but it's hard for me to not thinking creatively and actively, which is really my form of mental protection.

If I have try to meditate and stay in a spiritual mood I wind-up only being able to do that a few minutes.

I'm not sure that counts as meditation.

3

WindTalk wrote

The liberal mental-health narrative focused on individuals is bogus.

There seems a group of people here who think that dehumanizing and attacking "liberals' is the biggest accomplishment in the world. Funny how you criticize certain directions of focus, individuality without group, but don't see your own extreme out-group focus.

Do you mean moral liberalism? Or politics? or? As much of the planet for the past 1500 years has lived under various forms of orthodox authority of god, and liberals / heretics against such orthodoxy I (and many others) consider significant progress against misinterpretation of stories.

3

shanoxilt wrote

Take your imperialist religious nonsense and fuck off.

We were here before you and we'll be here after you.

0

TimmyCatChores wrote

Is that verdict of the of all of Raddle.me?

I'm going to need to know how to handle this before putting any more effort into the site.

2

shanoxilt wrote

لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ ۖ قَدْ تَبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ ۚ فَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالطَّاغُوتِ وَيُؤْمِنْ بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ اسْتَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقَىٰ لَا انْفِصَامَ لَهَا ۗ وَاللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ

--Jean Luc Picard

2

WindTalk wrote (edited )

The fact that people learn to manage and lower their reactive impulses during stressful moments does little to change the dehumanizing effects of the culture itself.

You say "during stressful moments". Ok, let's say your team just won or lost a key bowl or cup game in a sport. Positive or negative stressful moment. People tend to be de-individualized and become gangs of " reactive impulses".

Similarly, all over the world, how do individuals behave when war breaks out? Do they typically resist and promote peace, or go along with the crowd?

I think you are dividing up along poor lines. Without being free of crowd behavior under what you call "reactive impulses", there can't be an end to participation in group violence - the kind of escalation/revenge that violence and hate frequently draws.

bullshit spirituality

A lot of oriental spirituality, I can speak for Buddhism, educate one on psychological impulses and how to be more self-aware of raising behavior. To not just act out on impulses but to develop a system of self-control through awareness. And I don't mean just learning yoga alone (that many do today), but also the words and teachings that go along with it.

2

WindTalk wrote (edited )

A radical movement would be to become the mental health support system the country does not have.

"the country", as in a specific one. But a critical concept of human minds and spirituality is that they are universal.

A radical movement would be to become the mental health support system the country does not have.

Let's apply that thinking to radical Islamic terrorism. A radical movement that focuses on a change of the spiritual and mental health system, such as making adjustments to sexual interactions in public. And the support system being a hierarchical mosque system. What it promotes is to dismiss individual freedom of choice, individual beliefs, and individual challenging the collective system. And it survives the raise and fall of nations and works across multiple nations.

0

TimmyCatChores wrote

You seem to think that because you understand something everyone one on earth will magically think the same way.

I live in a country that creates a lot of systemic violence for the world. I care about the people my country hurts. I care about the people who are stuck in our huge cities.

Solidarity and activism don't come out of the sky. They happen between people in cities.

'hierarchical mosque system' -- weird abstract strawman.

OK ...I've seen this stuff before. Weird abstractions is right-libertarian sophistry.

2

WindTalk wrote (edited )

OK ...I've seen this stuff before. Weird abstractions is right-libertarian sophistry.

You seem to constantly exercise dismissing individuality by just slapping a name-label on people. I wasn't giving you simple answers, I was showing you just a couple examples of how limited your approach seems to be. Starting off a public conversation by using wildcard words like "bullshit" to mean anything you want doesn't help. Your attitude keeps coming across in all your replies on this topic: "anything I don't agree with in 1/2 page and 45 seconds of thinking" is summarily dismissed.

People have been trying to build new social systems for thousands of years, we still have books explaining their ideas from long ago. It isn't trivial, easy, simplistic.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

Yeah, I've seen the same arguments. I recognize the logic.

"It isn't trivial, easy, simplistic."

Give me your version of what to do.

Remember we live in multicultural cities of many faiths.

What is it you want to do, and what would be the first step.

4

WindTalk wrote

Remember we live in multicultural cities of many faiths.

Maybe you do, but I do not. And I think there are faith systems people just don't declare. Such as faith in lies and deception. Most of the history of religion hasn't been based on truth at all, it's been based on parents educating children and children being extremely loyal to what they learned in their childhood.

It's exceedingly rare for a mature set of adults to create a new system and institute it. Jonestown comes to mind, so does Scientology. But these approaches are more about cult to a specific book or personality - but that could also be said of classic religions.

-2

TimmyCatChores wrote

"Jonestown comes to mind, so does Scientology."

This is insulting reactionary bullshit. Just block me. OK. bullshit talker. I'm not buying your bullshit.

5

WindTalk wrote

This is insulting reactionary bullshit. Just block me. OK. bullshit talker. I'm not buying your bullshit.

You seem confused, I'm not selling anything, so there isn't anything for you to buy. You, however, are posting here selling the idea that "everything is bullshit I don't agree with" and a hate-filled reactionary reply attitude.

You seem to really like to label discussions bullshit as fast as you can! It's the first word in your post, and the last in your replies.

-2

TimmyCatChores wrote

This is the mental health forum. You're not adding any information on how to create anything, but what you happen to think the self is.

It's just out there. It doesn't have anything to do with anything in real life except for your idea of what a self should be.

Tell me how to help people. That's the game.

-2

TimmyCatChores wrote

the part about what to do, in terms of activism?

You need to tell collectivist what you want because they need to build that world for you.

-2

TimmyCatChores wrote

I'm getting from you a subjective opinion on who to be. But I have no idea how you expect to have that manifest in real life for the people ... who mostly live in big cities.

That fact that you say you don't in cities, and think it's just about being who you want to be outside of culture, leaves everyone else behind.

I have a city to worry about.

-2

TimmyCatChores wrote

I want to know if people see the divide here in psychology.

It's hyperreality that people believe an individual alone creates their own reality.

"Relativism - the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute. "

The right-wing angle here is relativist. "Truth is whatever you think it is"

I follow rational-skepticism and science for my argumentation. Part of that is social science.

People that insist culture is constructed from the individual are relativist and essentialist.

The fact that every generation learns from the previous, and we learn our selves from within the culture, or we don't function in the culture, is self-evident. That's where social psychology comes-in.

Right-wingers hate psychology.