How psychologists subvert democratic movement

[reeay]

Mental illness as an "anti-authoritarian" pathology (disease), reflecting the authoritarian power structure created by psychologists, psychiatrists, and society (and the pharmaceutical industry) .

http://www.zcommunications.org/how-psych...e-e-levine

Authoritarianism is unquestioning obedience to authority. Authoritarians in control demand unquestioning obedience and authoritarian subordinates give them that unquestioning obedience. In contrast, anti-authoritarians question the legitimacy of an authority before taking it seriously. Does the authority know what it’s talking about or not? Does it tell the truth or lie? Does it care about the people who are taking it seriously or is it exploitative? And if anti-authoritarians assess an authority to be illegitimate, they then challenge and resist it. By pathologizing and “treating” anti-authoritarians, psychologists and other mental health professionals are taking them off “democracy battlefields.”

[Sagittarius]

Well hopefully in 4 years when I have my psych degree I can make a difference in that regard, cheers for the link was very interesting.

[Parsons]

Extremely good article. It basically put to words all the criticism of the field of psychology since even before awakening. I was very seriously considering going in to the field of psychology in high school, but noticed many of the criticisms talked about in this article. This prevented me from ever following through with my want to help people in the field as I was afraid I would do more damage than good. I am horrified to be correct, as this doesn't stop droves of mental health professionals following their training like good obedient educational institution(religion).

What I take away from this article is: I feel proud to be self-diagnosed with "O.D.D.".

[caycegal]

I have a master's degree in counseling and worked in a mental health center for a while. Although I learned a lot that was very helpful while getting my degree, including the one over-arching fact that the most helpful way to relate to others is complete acceptance, after a while I came to feel that there was a certain hollowness to the field, a desire to set oneself up as an expert who can "help" the other because one has "true knowledge," which the other does not have. It is both true and not true at the same time. Also, usually there is no place for prayer and meditation in a treatment facility, unless it is a 12-step facility.

People usually go into the field because they want to heal themselves. However, some people never realize this and they keep the focus entirely on "the other."

Counselors have helped me a great deal in my life, so I certainly don't consider it an evil or wrong field to go into. Ideally the practitioner would have a great deal of insight into self.

Another thing to consider is the way the field is constantly being diluted by those who wish to change it into a pharmacological mechanistic type practice.

[zenmaster]

It's a balance. When you don't have authority, you have mob mentality.

[reeay]

Balanced authority is great. People who are mindful of social justice issues, esp around power.

[zenmaster]

Balanced authority is great. People who are mindful of social justice issues, esp around power.

Here's are some questions: from where does authority originate? What does it take to recognize legitimate authority?

[reeay]

The authority could originate from a group a people who set up a structure and rules, and legitimize themselves by gaining consensus among the people in the field. They gain legitimacy from other societal groups/organizations/entity. There's nothing wrong with authority. It's the difference between authoritarian and authoritative authority. Where authoritarian authority exerts its power to diagnose people without having a wholistic understanding the context of the problem, then it creates more negative consequence than working towards resolution.

[zenmaster]

Who has a holistic understanding? How does one recognize this?

[reeay]

The client(s) and practitioner work towards a holistic understanding of the problem together. We move away from pathology because, really, who has actually treated the pathology or even cured it from a medical standpoint? Pathology is useless unless you're a behavioralist or a cognitive-behavioralist who looks at behavioral and emotional symptoms and could at best yield a short-term relief. If you look at research on pathology/symptom based cognitive-behavioral type therapy, the effect size is very small, meaning the overall effect of the treatment was more or less temporary or short-term.

The assumption is that symptoms are a manifestation or consequence of an etiology,which has a deeper, and a deeper, and deeper etiology (going towards more spiritual issues). In order to understand the underlying etiologies of the problem, it would require an extensive understanding of various contexts that a person lives in. Whether this be socioeconomic and political (e.g., poverty, oppression), history of mental illness or trauma or even historical trauma/grief, relational dynamics, systemic understanding of the family... goes on and on.

For some, the first step is to understand what the identified problem was (e.g., ODD or ADHD or substance abuse), how the problem was formulated, who formulated it, why it was formulated, etc. Most people actually get stuck at the behavioral level. They will say they tried everything but nothing worked. Reformulating the problem makes a difference. The identified problem might have been the consequence of a an older problem.

Once you have a more relevant problem to work with, easier to see the person moves away from that stuck place. That's how we recognize that our understanding was more holistic than before.

So back to the point - authoritative authority would be more inclined to collaborate with the clients at every stage, knowing that the client is an expert of their own life, while the practitioner is an expert in treatment process. They would actually address issues like socioeconomic or educational or racial/ethnic/cultural difference between practitioner and client. Boundaries are semipermeable rather than solid. That allows relationships to grow, thus trust and bonding, which is important for some people.

[zenmaster]

I understand the different approaches, but I was trying to elicit how legitimate authority would be recognized before treatment (holistic or pathological, effective or otherwise).

Also, for those labeling themselves as "holistic", what constitutes the relative authority in that space? What makes it legitimate? If it simply comes down to a matter of intention, then why do we need authority in the first place?

In other words, at what point do we move completely away from pathology as an effective treatment? I think that has to do with recognition of authority.

[Patrick]

It's a balance. When you don't have authority, you have mob mentality.

It may be useful now. But the more we form our social memory complex, the less need for authority we will need.

[Siren]

Each mind/body/spirit complex is sovereign of itself, agent of its own free-will, and author of its own life-story.

To recognize and uphold external figures of authority takes that power/free-will away from yourself, diminishing/limiting/restricting your innate ability to exercise that quintessential divine principle: free-will. To lend that free-will to others ("their will be done over mine") empowers the enslaver/master/elite.

POWER is legitimate free-will sovereignty.

This is what the "elite" possess simply because the masses give it away (which results in the "power differential" between master and slave). And it will continue to be like this for as long as people keep electing their "leaders" and putting them on pedestals of grandeur where they may continue to dictate what is expected of them, what rules to adhere to, etc.

If there is one "responsibility," this is it: to take charge of your own sovereignty instead of choosing others to direct your life (and then whine and complain about how "corrupt" and abusive the government is?).

And don't get me wrong, there is quite a big difference between a good shepherd and its sheep (i.e. teacher/student relationship), and a butcher and its sheep (i.e. master/slave relationship). The sheep here—whether conscious of it or not—have become so enslaved out of their own volition by choosing and agreeing to be lorded over by a governmental/authoritarian entity. It was their choice then and it continues to be their choice now. This kind of attitude/behavior is of a 3rd density fear-based mindset with negative imprints based on the hierarchical system of master/slave power relationships of 4th density negative service.

Why is it that people keep thinking that "authority" does not belong to them and is only to be awarded to and recognized on external figures of popularity? This continues to befuddle me to this day.

---

Do YOU have authority?

Authority (n)
From O.Fr. auctorité "authority, prestige, right, permission, dignity, gravity" (12c.; Mod.Fr. autorité), from L. auctoritatem (nom. auctoritas) "invention, advice, opinion, influence, command," from auctor "master, leader, author"

---

And by the way, I deal/interact/brush with psychology students somewhat regularly (if I had chosen to follow a professional career, philosophy/psychology/sociology would've been it), and I have often remarked how the psychology of today has very little of "psyche" (Greek for "soul/mind"), and should instead be re-named "brainology" to more accurately reflect its field of study: the brain.

[zenmaster]

It's a balance. When you don't have authority, you have mob mentality.

It may be useful now. But the more we form our social memory complex, the less need for authority we will need.

While that may be useful to know for future reference, living here and now means dealing with what we are offered and may provide now, in actuality. This is how we learn and eventually transcend needs such as these, by first appreciating and accepting our conditions. If we put that off to the future, nothing happens.

[Patrick]

It's a balance. When you don't have authority, you have mob mentality.

It may be useful now. But the more we form our social memory complex, the less need for authority we will need.

While that may be useful to know for future reference, living here and now means dealing with what we are offered and may provide now, in actuality. This is how we learn and eventually transcend needs such as these, by first appreciating and accepting our conditions. If we put that off to the future, nothing happens.

That's why I did vote in our recent election and why I do not worry about what I eat or how technology should be used. Or the form that my help will take.

[zenmaster]

To recognize and uphold external figures of authority takes that power/free-will away from yourself, diminishing/limiting/restricting your innate ability to exercise that quintessential divine principle: free-will. To lend that free-will to others ("their will be done over mine") empowers the enslaver/master/elite.

But truly exercising free will is not really the province of 3D. We are made to be dependent on others for the purpose of learning yellow-ray lessons. Therefore, each other-self is made to be an authority in some capacity, for the sake of convenience, in one or more circumstances. This is the daily life of 3D. We may acknowledge the ideal of self sovereignty and even think we appreciate it, but it is not the purview of 3D. So we are back to the question of how to recognize authority.

[reeay]

I understand the different approaches, but I was trying to elicit how legitimate authority would be recognized before treatment (holistic or pathological, effective or otherwise).

Also, for those labeling themselves as "holistic", what constitutes the relative authority in that space? What makes it legitimate? If it simply comes down to a matter of intention, then why do we need authority in the first place?

In other words, at what point do we move completely away from pathology as an effective treatment? I think that has to do with recognition of authority.

Of course, authority is important and it's there every step of the way, no matter what you do, authority begins and ends the process regardless of whether you prefer to focus on pathology or be more context based. You gain legitimacy based on your education, training, degree, license to practice, etc,. My original point was just that power which is implicit in this position of authority requires a good amount of reflection to prevent control and manipulation of others. And who has authority on that? Your supervisor (given authority by an authority/governing board), and your self.

[Patrick]

...Therefore, each other-self is made to be an authority in some capacity, for the sake of convenience, in one or more circumstances...

Yes and each Self can choose whether they intentionally push the authority they built for their Self on other-selves or if they only apply it to their own Self.

That is the kind of freewill we are here to exercise.

[Spaced]

I don't have much to add here except if one wants to do further reading on the rise of "experts" as the authoritative elite I would suggest reading some of the works of Michel Foucault.

[zenmaster]

I think it comes back to the archetype of experience, depicted as a king on a throne. This is the epitomization of authority. But at the same time, and more fundamental to recognition of legitimacy, it's nobility and sovereignty. One becomes ennobled, sovereign and authoritative though experience.

It is impossible to appreciate or to recognize authority without authority.

---

...Therefore, each other-self is made to be an authority in some capacity, for the sake of convenience, in one or more circumstances...

Yes and each Self can choose whether they intentionally push the authority they built for their Self on other-selves or if they only apply it to their own Self.

That is the kind of freewill we are here to exercise.

Yes, that is part of the learning process which provides the illusion of free will. The constraint is experience.

[Patrick]

...Yes, that is part of the learning process which provides the illusion of free will. The constraint is experience.

Do you believe that ultimately freewill is an illusion ?

[zenmaster]

...Yes, that is part of the learning process which provides the illusion of free will. The constraint is experience.

Do you believe that ultimately freewill is an illusion ?

No, people use it occasionally and of course they know it when they do. It's quite a liberating and humbling experience.

[reeay]

I don't have much to add here except if one wants to do further reading on the rise of "experts" as the authoritative elite I would suggest reading some of the works of Michel Foucault.

What did Michel Foucault think about experts (as authoritative elite)?

[Siren]

But truly exercising free will is not really the province of 3D.

Of course, there are degrees of free-will exercising.

However, the law of 3rd density is the Law of Free-will/Choice/Responsibility. The yellow-ray vibratory experience is rooted on self-awareness, self-sovereignty, which is what differentiates it from 2nd density flora/fauna entities. This "individualization" is what allows for societal relationships/interactions between a "self" and another "self" (which you may call "dependence"), and the "conflict" between free-wills that ensues out of it, which is the basis of a 3rd density experience (particularly a "veiled" one).

The balanced/harmonious path/choice is simply to recognize yourself as well as every other-self as the author of its own book of life, as it were, and allow and respect every-self's own authorship as well as your own.

The imbalanced/disharmonious path/choice only distinguishes others-selves as authoritative figures worthy (more than yourself) of praise and certain "idolization" and blind following simply because they sit on a throne or get some media coverage or have some PhD papers that may or may not mean anything.

In the former example there is a power equalization; in the latter, a power differential (i.e. the master becomes more empowered by the slave who offers its "worship" and thus loses its own sovereignty by transferring it to the figure of "authority").

So we are back to the question of how to recognize authority.

Look in the mirror.

Everything begins and ends with the self.

(Or alternatively, look in the TV for the predominant view on "authority"...)

[Patrick]

...Yes, that is part of the learning process which provides the illusion of free will. The constraint is experience.

Do you believe that ultimately freewill is an illusion ?

No, people use it occasionally and of course they know it when they do. It's quite a liberating and humbling experience.

I certainly find your opinion interesting.

Personally, I do not believe that it's possible for us not to constantly exercise our free will, even here in veiled 3d.

[zenmaster]

So we are back to the question of how to recognize authority.

Look in the mirror.

Everything begins and ends with the self.

(Or alternatively, look in the TV... )

You do realize that I am still talking about the context of the OP? We can choose to go live in a cave to address the issue or we can talk about practical solutions.

[caycegal]

Who has a holistic understanding? How does one recognize this?

I believe one must look inside, strive to know the truth about one's own belief systems and learn to experience and feel one's own feelings. For me it's also helpful to pray - ask for guidance - from whatever it is you feel you can pray to, whether a traditional religious figure, or your own higher self.

When you hear someone speak do you feel warm and comfortable or do you feel angry or fearful? Which way to you think Jesus (or Buddha) would make you feel?

[zenmaster]

So basically the answer is that the "subversion" will continue indefinitely unless and until influential people look in the mirror. Well we have infinity don't we.

[caycegal]

Personally, I do not believe that it's possible for us not to constantly exercise our free will, even here in veiled 3d.

Agreed. Even when we believe circumstances are being forced upon us, a great deal of free will is involved. I think Ra would say we are constantly choosing. Edgar Cayce also said "Choose Thou!"

I think it's important to accept ourselves when we make baby steps in the direction of changing our beliefs and thoughts. A lot of little baby steps equal a big grown-up step!

[Siren]

So basically the answer is that the "subversion" will continue indefinitely unless and until influential people look in the mirror. Well we have infinity don't we.

No need for "influential" people. If all the Average Joes would but stop doing what they are doing right now and get into a cave/forest/island or other isolated place and meditate for just a few days, then the world machine would stop, and we would no longer find ourselves in this conundrum that some people see as a "backward planet," for there would be no more need for politics or government or any other form of coercive authority.

Then again, it's all about the EXPERIENCE, nothing more. And of course, we have infinity to play this out anyway (repeat history over and over and over again). Even if this 3rd density cycle comes to an end, there are other planetary spheres were all of this may be continued, are there not? (And has this not been the case with 3rd density grade repeaters all along?). I guess some people are simply too immersed in this 3rd density human drama. And that's perfectly OK. I certainly find it amusing.