What Rense.com is not talking about
Ruth said:
Sorry, this must be a 'nursing' thing. Only doctors are allowed to make medical diagnoses. I'm assuming that the difference between psychiatrists and psychologists is understood. One is a medical specialist (doctor) and one is a behavioural specialist.
Anyone is allowed to make "unofficial" medical diagnoses, and everyone often does for themselves and others. Have you ever concluded that you have the flu after you examine your own symptomes? Or maybe the common cold? Did you break the law by making a self-diagnosis without being a doctor?
beau said:
Ruth said:
The Mental Health Act 1986 Vic. They (psychiatrists) can also treat and commit people who have mental illnesses. We have fairly strict laws here for that. Its stops people being committed for reasons other than mental illness. Or where it isn't necessary to have them committed.
No one is speaking about treating or commiting as far as I have noticed. Ruth - I think this is a perfect example right here of what others have mentioned about your "schizoid" (or the other schizo-whatever you wanna call it) elements. Psychiatry, psychology, philosophy, medical science, and any science for that matter is a study of a reality, whether this be a reality of the human mind, the human body, the external world, or anything else for that matter. Just as you don't have to be an authorized physicist to understand physics and make accurate observations about physical things, neither do you have to be a doctor to tell that someone has the flu or other disease based on your knowledge of the symptoms and analysis of the person, neither do you have to be a psychiatrist or psychologist to tell if someone is schizoid or any other psychiatric term. Again, the point is not to diagnose for the purposes of placing someone in a mental hospital or prescribing medication, but for the purposes of learning - helping the individual SEE themselves and others, and learn. All you're doing is making observations from your knowledge of a particular field of study - there is NO law against this - the law is clearly about treating and commiting or impersonating an authorized psychiatrist. Then again, giving friendly advice to your friend or family member - that is also treating isn't it? Is that breaking a law? What about telling someone they have the flu, is that breaking the law? What about getting to the root of why someone is angry and telling them what you think the root of their anger is and how they could deal with it and why - against the law?
Knowledge protects. Medical degrees do not equate to knowledge, neither do any other degrees or titles. All "professionals" or "experts" of any field of scientific of quasi-scientific study on the planet can be wrong, and many times are. On the other hand, some people understand a field of study better than any scientist with degrees and titles does - and they do not need any titles to prove it to themselves or anyone, their knowledge and the data and logic they use speaks for itself.
I remember seeing a psychiatrist diagnose psychopathy as a type of personality disorder. That was utter nonsense - psychopathy, although can be reflected in the personality, is not rooted in it. To say that it is, is to not only distort the reality, it is to cover it up and thus make others vulnerable to it and keep them asleep about its true nature. Knowledge protects after all, but that psychiatrist was promoting ignorance due to either his own ignorance or intentional disinfo. I personally think it was intentional disinfo because it was a televised on HBO interview with a well known mass-murderer and mafia member. He was CLEARLY a psychopath, genetically since childhood, and it was not a "personality quirk" at all.
Ruth said:
Jolly good then, I'll just go an crown myself queen of Egypt then.
Just because someone is a real queen of Egypt does not mean they are capable of ruling Egypt, are responsible, care about the country or its people, or have any other qualities that could be attributed to a queen. Titles mean NOTHING other than the fact that the person received the title for one reason or another. So while you cannot have the official title of "queen of Egypt", you can still be far more fit to be the queen of Egypt than the official queen of Egypt ever was.
I don't need to earn or deserve this title. It doesn't even have to belong to me. Anyone can be just whatever they want to be.
Again, although not everyone can have a title, anyone who seeks knowledge can have the same knowledge as someone who has a title, and more. There's no law against this (yet). Deserving and earning is subjective. While you may like the feeling that you somehow "deserve" or "earned" a title, others do not care about titles and only care about knowledge. So while some people with titles know very little about their own field, others without the title know much more about that same field. There are more ways than 1 to get a title or pass a test. Bush is the president of the US - does that make him the most qualified? Does it even make him qualified at all? He can be a total idiot, a psychopath, a mass murderer, an utter liar, and be the president of the biggest "freedom and democracy" on Earth who many consider honest, good, etc. Titles really mean nothing.
Yes, you can see that I can have quite a lot of fun with this idea. Forget standards (even if they are subject to MCS) - lets just make our own!
You are having a lot of fun twisting the idea, but I am not sure if you're doing this intentionally or you're simply incapable of comprehending certain concepts in the way they were given? In either case, I must ask, why?
The idea is not about giving ourselves titles at our whim. The idea is that you don't need a title to know as much as or more than someone with a title and be able to just as accurately diagnose someone or analyze an aspect of our reality. So while titles make someone "officially qualified", let me bring Bush back for a second - he's "officially qualified" to be the president and all the standards that this implies to be a president of the biggest "democracy" on the planet. He holds the most important office of responsibility in the country, more than any doctor or psychiatrist could dream. He's supposed to be the role model, the hero of the nation - there are many standards he has to live up to... right?
My point is, "standards", "titles", "official qualifications" - all are window dressings and illusions that mean absolutely NOTHING and are in fact entirely subjective. There ARE NO STANDARDS - 100 different people have 100 different perspectives about what the standards are for their respective field! But as the C's say,
It is who you are and what you SEE that matters. Titles do not, location does not, standards do not, authority does not.
Frankly, I agree with them on this point. Of course, the C's are not officially qualified to tell us what matters, and thank "God" they are 6th density or someone would most certainly sue them! They gave diet advice and they're not a dietician! They gave future prognostications and they're not futurists! They gave analysis of people's mentality and they're not psychiatrists! They even suggested reading material and they're not librarians! How DARE they! I'm calling my lawyer!
Ruth said:
beau said:
So Fifth Way's statement
Fifth Way wrote:
IMO the whole point of this forum may have slipped your mind
does hold water, except I think instead of slipping the whole point of the forum went right over her head.
No it was just an attempt at 'tail pulling' by Lucy that failed. Nice attempt though.
Ruth, all medical terms aside, I think the members of this forum are simply trying to tell you something that they observe about you from the nature of your posts. You, instead of considering their observations, are fighting them and putting up a shield. I must admit that it's not easy (for me) to pinpoint exactly WHAT it is - but I see it as well, and I frankly agree with those who have pointed it out in one way or another. Regardless of whether you think someone is allowed to make this or that observation and analysis, the motto of this forum and website is "knowledge protects" - not SOME knowledge protects, but ALL knowledge. As such, I think you may find it very helpful to stop and think about what is being said to you about yourself. I'm not saying this to insult you or to tell you that you're worse than me or someone or to "judge" you in any way, but simply to point out what I SEE. Can I and other members who see the same thing be wrong? Yes, but given the sheer amount of evidence over the long period of time that you've been on this forum and casschat combined, I think it is highly unlikely.
A part of you feels threatened by this. Perhaps instead of letting that part of you speak FOR you, you may wish to look within and find which part it is and why it is so threatened? Either you really ARE being attacked, or the members really did point to a truth that this part of you does not wish to ever face because it will lose its comfortable status quo if it does - it will die. So of course it will feel threatened and fight back. It won't let you even question it, you will have to force yourself to, despite its kicking and screaming. If you do not, it will inevitably be a downward spiral. It will remain a block impeding your own progress until you can clear it, which WILL be uncomfortable but there's no other way.
And no I'm not speaking from a perspective of someone who has no blocks that are impeding my progress - I'm not pretending to. I have plenty, I have plenty to work on with myself, I am simply speaking from the perspective of someone who has experienced uncomfortable feeback from this very group before (in casschat and QFG), and although my first reaction has been to fight back what I perceived was an attack, I KNEW that if I never challenge that perception, I'll never know for sure! And once I have, and have SEEN what others were seeing in me, I couldn't believe that I was biting the hand that was feeding me - I was fighting those who were in fact trying to help me grow. I wanted to cry, and I couldn't thank the group enough. It was one of those personal breakthroughs you feel when you overcome a block, a program, a sacred cow, a small "i" that is in control.
So having been in the same situation before (quite a few times), I can only speak from what I have taken away from that experience. And I have seen others like me and like yourself who have been in the same experience, and I have seen what happens when they cannot question that aspect of themselves that is in control, and thus erronously perceive a mirror given to them by the group as an attack. It is a downward spiral as I said, it always ends the same way! And it has nothing to do with being right or wrong - it's NOT, I repeat, NOT about submitting to anyone or admitting you're wrong just to appease the group. It's about seeing objective reality, about knowing yourself. There is NO WAY to fake your way out, because what the group is seeing is something that is not consciously controlled by you, so while some have attempted to pretend to "see" and then said that they understand in order to appease the group, it changed nothing - and it was obvious they lied because the moment they opened their mouth, it was still there. Very often they go away thinking that the group attacked them, and that disagreeing with the group means they must be removed from it and so they see this group as the enemy. This is simply untrue, it is pathological twisted logic being activated by the very aspect of themselves that they refused to face in order to protect itself from future attacks. There's a bunch of variations of it too, but usually all very similar in nature.
Of course, the group CAN be wrong - but so far the more you try to "prove the group wrong", the more obvious it becomes because what the group is seeing becomes more and more extreme and shows itself even more, and in fact, you end up actually proving the group right.
Again, I'm just saying what I SEE - and I am only trying to help you see it as well - all you have to do is consider the possibility that the group IS indeed seeing something and try looking for it yourself. No need to ever admit to something you do not see - no one is trying to convince you of anything or making you admit that you're wrong. Again, the point is to SEE not to make a new conviction. But if you never look, how could you see?
