The Myth of Mental Illness

[Walker]

Interesting. In that particular instance, what I see in retrospect of memory is a teacher, for whatever reason, trying to break a spirit. And I saw a child who would not break. We were much younger than middle school and the social antics of peer pressure that accompany the developing sense of separation, so I don't think the girl had much calculation in her stoic behavior, regardless of whatever caused it. In retrospect, the teacher could well have been wailing on some memory because she certainly wasn't too concerned about present harm. What I see now is that neither the child nor the teacher had a choice in their behavior at the time, although they could take steps to prevent future occurances if they felt the need.

[Walker]

That's interesting. I see it a bit differently.

Thoughts + mental illness results in one or both:
1. Thoughts that torment awareness.
2. Thoughts that intend and then cause inappropriate harmful actions (harmful actions being appropriate in other situations).

- Thoughts are the basic issue, and by extension all that affects thoughts.
- Brain chemistry affects thoughts.

- What one learns through equanimity is that thoughts are arbitrary. They come and they go, sometimes they go quite quickly and can’t be found again.
- None of that is as important as the relationship between awareness and any thought that appears.

- Awareness that recognizes the nature and effect of thoughts upon the thinker and the thinker’s actions, need not be ruled into action by the thoughts, or ruled by any torment because of the thoughts.

- Without the anchor of an intellectual philosophy, or view, compassion is the only other anchor or touchstone for anyone, and compassion is not arrived at intellectually, although it can be considered in the abstract which generates a view of equanimity.

[meno_]

Interesting. In that particular instance, what I see in retrospect of memory is a teacher, for whatever reason, trying to break a spirit. And I saw a child who would not break. We were much younger than middle school and the social antics of peer pressure that accompany the developing sense of separation, so I don't think the girl had much calculation in her stoic behavior, regardless of whatever caused it. In retrospect, the teacher could well have been wailing on some memory because she certainly wasn't too concerned about present harm. What I see now is that neither the child nor the teacher had a choice in their behavior at the time, although they could take steps to prevent future occurances if they felt the need.

Could it be, without reading into the degrees of substantial separation between primary grade school and a middle school that it is a quest for identifiable markers that both students and teachers are looking for here? Could that primary experience mirror the child’s incessant quest to see him or herself in a two way mirror, where different modes and models are interfacing so that each person’s role becomes manifest in the other’s calculation , visible or invisible?

This may beg the question of what is produced and possibly reduced as a mode of representing the model?

Again, I apologize if such circular inquiry in it’self becomes a search of atypical to stereotypical symbolic content, exceeding the intended limits of the searc (for meaning), rather then the search for power motives in dependence.

[Sculptor]

Interesting. In that particular instance, what I see in retrospect of memory is a teacher, for whatever reason, trying to break a spirit.

I think these days that is very rare indeed. 70 years ago that was seen as a teacher's main job; to create uniform, homogenous and compliant pupils. These left school ready for the factory or the army. Do and die.
But as you shall no doubt have observed that in the age of what you would laughingly call "woke" that sort of thing is in the past.
Children are more able to express themselves and are given far more licence to act and explore.
This has made the teacher's job a lot more difficult having to negotiate rather than punish.

[meno_]

Interesting. In that particular instance, what I see in retrospect of memory is a teacher, for whatever reason, trying to break a spirit.

I think these days that is very rare indeed. 70 years ago that was seen as a teacher's main job; to create uniform, homogenous and compliant pupils. These left school ready for the factory or the army. Do and die.
But as you shall no doubt have observed that in the age of what you would laughingly call "woke" that sort of thing is in the past.
Children are more able to express themselves and are given far more licence to act and explore.
This has made the teacher's job a lot more difficult having to negotiate rather than punish.

I agree with this, but only in part

[Sculptor]

Interesting. In that particular instance, what I see in retrospect of memory is a teacher, for whatever reason, trying to break a spirit.

I think these days that is very rare indeed. 70 years ago that was seen as a teacher's main job; to create uniform, homogenous and compliant pupils. These left school ready for the factory or the army. Do and die.
But as you shall no doubt have observed that in the age of what you would laughingly call "woke" that sort of thing is in the past.
Children are more able to express themselves and are given far more licence to act and explore.
This has made the teacher's job a lot more difficult having to negotiate rather than punish.

I agree with this, but only in part

What part is so disagreeable?

[meno_]

I think these days that is very rare indeed. 70 years ago that was seen as a teacher's main job; to create uniform, homogenous and compliant pupils. These left school ready for the factory or the army. Do and die.
But as you shall no doubt have observed that in the age of what you would laughingly call "woke" that sort of thing is in the past.
Children are more able to express themselves and are given far more licence to act and explore.
This has made the teacher's job a lot more difficult having to negotiate rather than punish.

I agree with this, but only in part

What part is so disagreeable?

The part that can be perceived I agree with, the other is unperceivablr but not necessarily disagreeable.

[Sculptor]

I agree with this, but only in part

What part is so disagreeable?

The part that can be perceived I agree with, the other is unperceivablr but not necessarily disagreeable.

I did not mention perception, as such.
What is "unperceivablr"? Or imperceptible?
COnfused

[meno_]

What part is so disagreeable?

The part that can be perceived I agree with, the other is unperceivablr but not necessarily disagreeable.

I did not mention perception, as such.
What is "unperceivablr"? Or imperceptible?
COnfused

No real need to focus on trivial different nuances, primarily meant for the primary grades, the secondary processing concerns myths linked with masked perceptions.

[Sculptor]

The part that can be perceived I agree with, the other is unperceivablr but not necessarily disagreeable.

I did not mention perception, as such.
What is "unperceivablr"? Or imperceptible?
COnfused

No real need to focus on trivial different nuances, primarily meant for the primary grades, the secondary processing concerns myths linked with masked perceptions.

Except that I asked you what you disagreed with, and you did not answer
That's how a discussion works
One person says something then the other says where they agree or disagree, and then that requires a response. Rinse and repeat.

[meno_]

I did not mention perception, as such.
What is "unperceivablr"? Or imperceptible?
COnfused

No real need to focus on trivial different nuances, primarily meant for the primary grades, the secondary processing concerns myths linked with masked perceptions.

Except that I asked you what you disagreed with, and you did not answer
That's how a discussion works
One person says something then the other says where they agree or disagree, and then that requires a response. Rinse and repeat.

“What part is so disagreeable?

The part that can be perceived I agree with, the other is hidden from sight but not necessarily disagreeable.”



Neither part is disagreeable that was your words not mine

[meno_]

The part that can be perceived I agree with, the other is imperceptible but not necessarily disagreeable.

I did not mention perception, as such.
What is "unperceivablr"? Or imperceptible?
COnfused

I get your confusion. The difference between agreeing in part with necessarily disagreeing (totally) leaves open the possibility of either total agreement and partial agreement, but loosely speaking, the part not agreed with may mask crrtainty, as to agreement or disagreement, so it’s contingent depending on what the imperceptible part consists of, before that part can be perceived as disagreeable.

That agreement is contingent lead to no certain knowledge about it’s necessity.

One could easily say that some disagreements are ways to disagree for the sake of agreements, for for the ‘sake of’ agreeing a disagreement may serve as a way to form opinions. And opinions offer no value other than involve two parties in endless argumentation over what is agreed on before disagreements can be disposed of

[meno_]

In addition, the concern was with exceptional children, those who were included ethnic group, whose excelption consisted of partial segregation within the mainstream groups, who were seen as less integrated within a primary grade’s social setting, to which teachers strove to apply methods to correct such partiality as they exhibited, not conducive to the model uniformity aimed for.

That average students had no ability to evaluate and conform to realities of how to transition to the needs of a uniform class of students, their behavior became atypical .

And how this ‘masking’ of behavior hid the later myths associated with reviews of ways to change the myths associated with how the roles of both teacher and student could be reorganized to suit a variety of students in a continuously expanding learning environment.
That is what stioovisn’t agreeable to ‘special’ students.

[Sculptor]

No real need to focus on trivial different nuances, primarily meant for the primary grades, the secondary processing concerns myths linked with masked perceptions.

Except that I asked you what you disagreed with, and you did not answer
That's how a discussion works
One person says something then the other says where they agree or disagree, and then that requires a response. Rinse and repeat.

“What part is so disagreeable?

The part that can be perceived I agree with, the other is hidden from sight but not necessarily disagreeable.”



Neither part is disagreeable that was your words not mine

You are not making sense.
You said:

I agree with this, but only in part

[meno_]

Except that I asked you what you disagreed with, and you did not answer
That's how a discussion works
One person says something then the other says where they agree or disagree, and then that requires a response. Rinse and repeat.

“What part is so disagreeable?

The part that can be perceived I agree with, the other is hidden from sight but not necessarily disagreeable.”



Neither part is disagreeable that was your words not mine

You are not making sense.
You said:

I agree with this, but only in part

You said:

You are not making sense.
You said:


But the same opinion can be implied by saying this because sense is not made, it is reflected by underlying processes of optical processes. Without that, it is only contingency, opinion.