By Patricia Lefave, Monophrenic
Well there are a number of ways but for this short post let's use this one;
Sanity is defined as being in touch with, or facing, reality.
Insanity has been defined in one way , being out of touch with, or denying reality.
Now I claim that many others are acting this all out right in front of me like I am not there and that they have been doing so for many years.
The same groups claim that they have seen heard and done nothing and that none of this has happened.
I am diagnosed as 'crazy' since it has been determined, (in eleven cost effective minutes) that my perception of reality is incorrect and therefore my reactions to this imagined version of my own reality are incorrect, which also means that I am out of touch with reality and in denial. (Refusing to believe I am crazy.)
Conversely, those in the above mentioned groups who deny they have done any of this and also that they have seen or heard anything that would validate my perception of my experience of it are defined as 'sane' and in touch with reality.
Is this definition of me and them, reality?
If it is not truth, who then are those who are out of touch with reality and in denial?
If it is the group to whom that definition can be applied, should they all then be forced out of their jobs and drugged against their wills for their own good?
Is there one standard of sanity/insanity being applied by psychiatry in such a case or are there two?
If the diagnostic criteria used by the DSM which is laid out as all inclusive abstractions in absolute terms, without being connected in any way by concrete evidence, (since evidence is not considered to be necessary,) doesn't that mean that this standard must be applied as it to all people to be valid?
If it's not, doesn't that mean there is a double standard being promoted and therefore that proves the diagnostic criteria are NOT universal truths and therefore should not be, and cannot be, used as ambiguous abstractions. How can there be a one size fits all form of assessment, without the presence of concrete evidence to back it up?
Do exceptions 'prove' rules or nullify them?
Wouldn't exceptions mean that the DSM is actually a book of theories without evidence, and therefore not actually relevant scientifically speaking at all?
Can any other organization, (police services and courts for example) get away with controlling anyone based on theory alone without evidence to back it up?
Why should the mental illness business be able to do that?
Let's take a few minutes again to go over the definitions above of sane and insane shall we? I find that many people don't seem to really understand them.
