trouble is daniel i didn't mention any denial of the chemical-material, so
no dualism posited - in fact the relevance of teh chemical-material is
obviously a fact in the case with schizophrenia, there being a large
chemical-material factor at work. the issue, however, is 'disease' and on
that point i think i probably agree with Szasz: diease is a pathological
fact, not a chemical-material one - it _is_ chemical-material, but so is,
for example, reading or listening to music which are not pathological
(chemical-material being a necassary but not sufficient condition for
distinguishing pathological facts since the pathological is a distinction
_within_ the chemical-material facts).
as to the 'liberation' of the individual through turning everything (ie:
alocoholism) into a disease, what liberation? we merely become subjects of
another authority model, another logic of the medical. Szasz' arguments
about america becoming a 'therapeutic state' and the negative aspect to this
are pertninet on this point, even if his presupposition of individual
autonomy as a legitimating foundation for his approach is probably spurious.
we could take this all over the place but thanks for the comments..;-)
we are the dreamers of dreams......
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: eyes
> this idea of a disease basis for schizophrenia is, i
think, spurious and
> oppressive and something that should perhaps not be
perpetuated. at least
> not without it being made less authoritative (the
authority to confine etc)
> and the frontal cortex idea is not even the current
'medical model', the
> insane dopamine thesis being the current fashion amongst
....or, to suggest a counterpoint, is it profoundly
liberating? --no longer a matter of guilty interiorities to
be analysed, but simply a matter of taking medication to
correct chemical imbalances? no oedipal stage-show. this
may seem superficial--it _does_ seem superficial!-- and i
for one am not at all convinced that social/psychological
factors can be reduced to chemical ones, BUT at the same
time 1) isn't that distinction
(psycho-social/chemical-material) profoundly schizophrenic?
2) doesn't the idea of a purely psychologically-based
schizophrenia as the result of oppression assume a chimera
of the total, unified individual (which is what would be
being blocked-oppressed/repressed)? 3) drug-based treatments
do seem to produce "positive" effects and there is no
therapeutic method that justifies abandoning medication in
theory or practice as this time?
if we start saying schizophrenia's not _chemical-material_
because its _social-psychological_, we are employing a
tricky dualism that is not going to get too far?
"A great problem, deserving acute attention.
I solved it by turning out the lights and going
to bed." - John Fante, Ask The Dust