Removing the Stones of Madness

Sanango Carhuaz, Ancash - Perú

Knowledge is what we learn from experience, is what we accumulate for thought to translate the observed according to the retained information. However, by observing with this mindset that we assume as valid, we do not perceive the thing itself without interpreting it according to our mind cluttered with knowledge and information. That is, we do not see the thing, but our experience and information of the thing.

Moreover, the observed will vary according to the observer. Reality is a multi-process network which makes observation not neutral. This entirely means that the observation of the observer is an integral part of the observed. The observation of the observer comes to be a constituent part of what it’s being observed. This means that is impossible to perceive the world outside our conditioned perception, our conditioning accompanies every perception, every observation. In our relationship with ourselves, exists the logic of the observer / observed relationship, making it impossible to find an objective point of view in the observation.

If our perception is limited by the information that accumulates the same mind, ¿how do we observe the mind with the mind? Objectivity is not possible, not even a scientific observation since our mind is never neutral, is decoding according to the experience itself. Now, ¿ how is it that we can observe each other’s minds from our own mind with beliefs and paradigms? The “science” based on observation of the mind as psychiatry and others, makes us believe that we see a neutral reality, we just only see signs of no adaptation or what we call imbalance in those classified as mentally ill. These “symptoms”, only reflect what we expect of the other and that do not respond to our referral code, culture or paradigms. One of the fathers of modern psychiatry Sigmund Freud saw the perverse in everything that was not heterosexual intercourse, but the nature of perversion has changed in the collective unconscious and today we can argue that assertion. Freud would have been perceived as a madman or maniac in ancient Greece, where love between men was the basis of society, as it was considered the only way to true love. It would have been discarded in ancient Japan, where the Shogun kept a harem of concubines and youngsters or seen as sacrilegious by the shamans of Siberia, who believe that same sex relationships are a form of enlightenment.

Dr. Thomas Szasz, in his book Schizophrenia: the sacred symbol of psychiatry says: “In short, there is no such thing as schizophrenia.” Concludes that schizophrenia, rather than a mental illness, would be a moral verdict. Dr. Jeffrey Masson, in his book Against Therapies: Emotional Tyranny and the Myth of Psychological Healing published in 1988 says: “There is already awareness of the inherent danger to label someone with a category as schizophrenia disease, and many people are beginning to understand that there is no such entity” . Instead of being a real disease, the so called schizophrenia is a nonspecific category that includes almost everything a human can do, think or feel strongly that dislike other people (or the “suffered”). In other words, modern society has created a myth of control to have similar mental processes and these to be classified as forms of schizophrenia. The truth is that the word schizophrenia is a label just as what perverse is, indicates disapproval and does not exist as a biological entity. Yes there are diseases like heart abnormalities or cancer. The word schizophrenia reflects the values of the one that is diagnosing, as the person “should be”.

The wounds of the soul, which have always being called sadness or distress, today are called biological depression. This concept assumes that unhappiness is the result of a biological abnormality, which is sometimes called “endogenous depression” or “clinical depression”. This essentially indicates that depressive disorders are basically biochemical, not caused by events, environmental circumstances or bad relationships. The main hypothesis of depression have focused on that there is a disturbed functioning on the group of neurotransmitters called monoamines (epinephrine, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin), particularly the last two mentioned. Even till this day, no specific evidence has being found of an abnormality in the studies of the autoreceptor norepinephrine in depression. Furthermore, there is no clear evidence linking abnormal activity of the serotonin receptor in the brain with depression. “The information we have does not represent consistent evidence of altered levels of the neurotransmitter or a suspension of the normal receptor activity” (The biology of mental disorders, U.S. Gov’t Printing Office, 1992, p. 82 & 84).

Depression and schizophrenia are the most common “mental illness” and the strongholds of psychiatry. These labels are the majority of patients, psychiatric theories that in time will only be anecdotes of an era of confusion. However, these ideas have become crimes against humanity because of their barbaric healing methods. Treatments ranging from electroshocks, lobotomies, asylums, psychotropic drugs and farms for “addicts” wrongly called drug rehabilitation centers.

In the second half of the twentieth century, the invention of psychoactive drugs and their therapeutic use was done empirically. The first of these, the Largactil (chlorpromazine) was being investigated as an anesthetic and casually showed some antipsychotic activity (producing sedation and indifference). After that came the Anafranil (clomipramine) and Tofranil (imipramine). Similarly antipsychotics (* 1), formerly called neuroleptics (* 2), (causing catalepsy or sedation) began to be used empirically long before it was discovered that operated as D2 receptor antagonists of the dopaminergic pathway. In conclusion, the label of psychosis as biological disease was after the “discovery” of a “remedy” for this “disease”. Herein psychiatry is concluding that the effect determines the cause, this being totally anti-scientific.

Over 20 years ago, it was the pinnacle with the invention of Prozac or the happy pill. In practice it is the absolute assertion that depression is a chemical imbalance in the brain consisting of a decrease in the levels of certain neurotransmitters. Currently, institutions, physicians and the general public have assimilated that relationship (low serotonin = depression) as a valid scientific theory, but it is not. “There is absolutely no serious scientific evidence that suggests an existence of deficiency of serotonin in depression or any other psychiatric disorder”, this is the blunt conclusion of Jeffrey R. Lacasse and Jonathan Leo, the two authors of the PLoS Medicine article respectively (Florida State University College of Social Work and Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine). The fact that the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs) functions relatively well, makes Prozac the most prescribed antidepressant in history and gives place to the theory of biological depression. To seek the cause of a disease based on the response of a treatment is a bad argument, is like saying that because the Couldina or Frenadol relieve symptoms of colds, this is due to the existence of low levels of such compounds in the body. This assertion of seeking the cause of a “disease” and catalog it on the effect of a drug, would be one of the valid procedures for psychiatry.

All this is part of the support of our so called “civilization” of monochord thought, which is protected with scientific appearance and has become an indisputable religion not allowing dissidence. “Science” would be in conditions to perceive everything objectively; it is to say that the factual would be the only thing valid for them. Considering that the factual is the observed, ¿how we separate the observed from the observer? ¿How can we see objectively? On the other hand, in the case of psychotropic drugs, the effects would determine the cause or disease, which they presume to heal or relieve. Although is not a scientific method, this conclusion is valid for psychiatrists in the case of so called mental illness. Additionally, the observation of mental processes by the same mind is only a subjective position. ¿How this method can provide “scientific” theories based on the observation of a number of minds to find casuistry of biological terms as depression and schizophrenia?

Likewise, the pharmaceutical industry suffers many conflicts of interest. The research and drug approval are fully prosecuted as this industry along with sex, drugs and illegal weapons, are the ones that handle the most amount of money. Moreover, doctors, for prescribing certain chemicals, receive percentages, trips, prizes and even cars. Prozac has been used by more than 54 million patients in more than ninety countries and sells up to two billion dollars a year.  Prozac is the bestselling antidepressant in the history of psychopharmacology in the world or at least, is what the creators of the famous drug of happiness presumed in their website. It’s worth taking a look at this site, quotes: “If you doubt that depression may be the result of a chemical imbalance, try to remember all the times you tried to ‘leave it’ without the help of a doctor and an effective treatment”. There are two interesting things on that site; the first is to ensure that it is a chemical imbalance, as if there were no other type of depressions. The second is that after the list of side effects says “But most of the symptoms disappear after a few weeks of taking it and in most cases are not serious enough to stop taking Prozac. Can’t sleep? Can’t wake up? Can’t eat? Do not want or can’t have sex? Do you want to throw yourself out of the window? Do not worry; these symptoms will leave after a few weeks.

Schizophrenia and depression are terms that have been coined in questionable theories on this era of confusion. Supposed remedies as Prozac, Pristiq, Paxil (are among the 10 most dangerous drugs in the world) (* 3) Zoloft, Lexapro and benzodiazepines such as Xanax, Diazepam, Alprazolam, Clobazam, Clonazepam, Carbamazepine, Holoperidol, are a business that moves billions and sustain the idea of ??a biochemical mismatch. Dissidence, energy pollution, pulsion as an expression of fear or inner confusion, spiritual emergency, (* 4) in the case of schizophrenia, or the wounds of the soul, in the case of depression, are terms that in this civilization would be rejected for lack of scientific support. Any treatment that involves going to the soul of the one that is suffering, it is not considered by the medical clinic. For our physicians only exists a human being composed of molecules and physical settings. There is nothing more absurd to deny the soul. There is nothing more genocidal to poison the body of the one that is suffering with dangerous and addictive drugs with severe side effects. These drugs only sleep the symptom and destroy the opportunity to heal and understand, plunging humanity into misery of dependency and ignorance of his spiritual nature.

(* 1) Results: During follow-up, antipsychotic treatment reflected prescribing practices in the nation between 1991 and 2009. A prolonged follow correlated with lower volume of brain tissue and cerebrospinal fluid volume increased. The greater intensity of antipsychotic treatment was associated with indicators of generalized and specific reductions of brain tissue after controlling for the effects of the other three predictors. More antipsychotic treatment was associated with lower gray matter volumes. A progressive decrease in white matter volume was most evident among patients who received more antipsychotic treatment. The severity of the disease showed a relatively modest correlation with brain shrinkage, and misuse of alcohol / illegal drugs showed no significant association when adjusted for the effects of other variables. (Ho BC, Andreasen NC, Ziebell S, Pierson R, Magnotta V.Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011, 68: 128, doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.199)

(* 2) H. Laborit, who was the first to experiment with neuroleptics, had the honesty to call them “Chemical Lobotomizers” in 1952.

(* 3) According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Events Reporter System (Adverse Event Reporting), many popular drugs may be related to the homicides. In the top ten most dangerous drugs appear the antidepressants, but also included a drug for insomnia, another is for a disorder of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a drug against Malaria and anti-smoking.

(*4) There are important reasons to recognize the existence of spiritual emergencies and to remove them from the framework of the medical model. In individuals who suffer a crisis of this transformative nature, insensitive use of labels and different pathological repressive measures, including indiscriminate control symptoms through medication, can interfere in the healing potential of the process. The long term dependency of neuroleptics and tranquilizers (with its well-known side effects), lack of vitality and a lifestyle conditioned presented a sad contrast to these rare situations in which a transformational crisis of the person is allowed to continue its course and are supported and recognized as such. (Christina and Stanislav Grof)

One Response to “Removing the Stones of Madness”

  1. David Fields says:

    Beautiful website! And the articles are very profound.

    I wanted to comment about something you mention in this great article on the mind. One question you ask is: How do we discern Truth with a mind that is conditioned by Ignorance? (My paraphrase) Lovely question.

    In the Vedic tradition, specifically Vedanta, the mind takes on a course of deep investigation, self inquiry, using the intellect in order to reeducate the mind to see things properly. The “objective” guide is scripture. The three main ones for this kind of inquiry being the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, and the Brahma Sutras. Each one points in a very objective way to the Self, and it’s relationship with the entire Cosmos. One first listens to the teachings (unfolded by a qualified teacher) and then reflects on them, and gradually adjusts one’s thinking to that of the scripture. A certain amount of faith is required here at first; but only pending one’s own investigation.

    It’s difficult for some to get their minds around this, but Vedic scriptures did not come from the human intellect. They were cognized by high souls and coded into a language (Sanskrit) that was itself cognized. If they had, they would have been subject to human error. But they aren’t. They withstand the test of time generation after generation. Millennia after millennia.

    Anyway, my purpose here is not about advertisement. Only to provide an answer to this question around objectivity and the mind. Vedanta deals with just this issue.

    I so appreciate the work you folks are up to. The Sacred Plants, the higher teachings of shamanism, were once lively branches on the great Vedic tree of knowledge. You are helping to re enliven this great tradition.
    God Bless You,
    David Fields
    Newberg, Oregon
    http://www.sattwachai.com

Leave a Comment








Blog

Subscribe to our Newsletter