Kickle said:

You guys know that "spiritual crisis" is a DSM (diagnostic and statistical manual) diagnosis, right? Psychiatrists at large acknowledge spiritual problems as real problems.

---

Kickle said:

You guys know that "spiritual crisis" is a DSM (diagnostic and statistical manual) diagnosis, right? Psychiatrists at large acknowledge spiritual problems as real problems.

---

that's good to hear... though i wonder how willing a psychiatrist is to use this diagnosis. i'm sure there's some who are more accepting of it as being a valid description of one's disorder than others are, based on their paradigm...

for example - i've had a very very strong energetic pressure in my crown and third eye area that accompanies the experience of an autonomous entity. this pressure grows incredibly strong when i meditate, to the point of being painful (begins to feel like a strong burning in my head). it's actually the main symptom i want to get rid of with my situation, moreso than the communication that occurs with the entity. when i asked the psychiatrist what his take on this was - he said it was a tactile hallucination, and left it at that - despite the very obvious regularity of it occurring with the precise trigger of meditation. to him, this is a 'random' result of schizophrenia.

in contrast, the psychologist i see from the same clinic sees my situation from a psychological/spiritual perspective, and has been considerably more helpful in dealing with it.

the problem is that the paradigm one sees through totally shapes their perception of the patient's condition. and since the only 'test' for specific mental illnesses is observation of the patient and hearing his/her accounts, this becomes a very biased process imo.

deff said:

Kickle said:

You guys know that "spiritual crisis" is a DSM (diagnostic and statistical manual) diagnosis, right? Psychiatrists at large acknowledge spiritual problems as real problems.

---

that's good to hear... though i wonder how willing a psychiatrist is to use this diagnosis. i'm sure there's some who are more accepting of it as being a valid description of one's disorder than others are, based on their paradigm...

for example - i've had a very very strong energetic pressure in my crown and third eye area that accompanies the experience of an autonomous entity. this pressure grows incredibly strong when i meditate, to the point of being painful (begins to feel like a strong burning in my head). it's actually the main symptom i want to get rid of with my situation, moreso than the communication that occurs with the entity. when i asked the psychiatrist what his take on this was - he said it was a tactile hallucination, and left it at that - despite the very obvious regularity of it occurring with the precise trigger of meditation. to him, this is a 'random' result of schizophrenia.

in contrast, the psychologist i see from the same clinic sees my situation from a psychological/spiritual perspective, and has been considerably more helpful in dealing with it.

the problem is that the paradigm one sees through totally shapes their perception of the patient's condition. and since the only 'test' for specific mental illnesses is observation of the patient and hearing his/her accounts, this becomes a very biased process imo.

---

their approach makes sense to me

I think of psychology and buddhism as subtle thought lines that require a fine touch and psychiatry as a more gross thought line that encompasses the more extreme.

The vast majority of the world works this way. What might drive me to rob a store is a definite problem that grew out of subtle roots in the mind. Most likely related to upbringing and the pressures of life. But the cops are going to put me in a jail cell for it, a drastic and gross move. I failed to change what was happening until it was a very serious problem and so they will change it in a way that fits that level of action (gross). Psychiatry does the same. When one drifts too far out to the edges and begins acting in gross ways, one cannot expect subtle touches in response.

Those who voluntarily seek a psychiatrist do so because they believe in psychotropic medicine. This is a spiritual stance. Those who do not voluntarily seek a psychiatrist are in that position because they went off the deep end. This is a spiritual crisis.

Kickle said:

I see no difference between the speeding car and psychiatry in that sense. What happens, happens. There is no changing it no matter how much we think it "shouldn't have been". I don't think I'd necessary go so far as to call it beneficial because certainly sometimes it is not. But no cars, no speeding. No problems, no psychiatry. No ignorance, no ignorant usage. All of this is in the world and so the world is as it is.

From a certain stance I see psychiatry as perfect.
From another an ugly outgrowth.

---

i really don't see a disagreement in our views at all

this just arose due to the discussion that psychiatry isn't the best solution for every case of mental disturbance. for cateyes for instance, he's seen much better results with supplementation and such according to him.

of course everything is perfect. but it can be an unnecessarily painful perfect