|
Date: |
Sun, 1 Oct 2000
12:35:23 -0700 |
|
To: |
"MHOCCA List"
<mhocca@egroups.com> |
|
From: |
"Andrew Phelps"
<starfish@northcoast.com> |
|
Subject: |
Re: [MHOCCA]
Personal responsibility |
|
Katherine Minsk wrote:
I dont think that we should blame all our problems on the mental health
system, the way we were potty-trained, the political system, etc. We need to
take responsibility for our actions.
Judgment of actions need to also take into consideration the context of the
action and also history. It is one thing if a person lashes out in the
frustration of the moment, and another if he/she is consistently abusive.
Well, with this I agree. Only theres a caveat:
At
some points in history, things achieve an irrational interface
and social violation takes on a different earmarking under these
time/place considerations. For instance, when Rosa Parks refused
to go to the back of the bus, this did not get judged on the basis
of the hurt feelings of the passengers and the inconvenience of the
bus driver who was after all just a working stiff. Thats because
the focal meaning of segregation came out at this time.
I was involved in similar situations in the 60s around Peoples Park.
Some people took over this vacant lot that the University was using
as a parking lot. This was a violation of the laws of property.
But eventually even Gov. Reagan and the National Guard couldnt get
U.C.s right enforced. Today which is 31 years later the property
is still undeveloped and the place is being used today as .. a park.
The issue of how to deal with the fundamental irrationality of
the rationalist, pre-scientific mental health model we have today
is IMHO volatile in the same kind of degree. TAC argues that we
should adopt a regressive stance, Torreys version is that we should
retrieve the feudal family customs of tribal Ethiopia and impose
them on Western society. Thats like arguing for racism. The
alternative is very challenging and requires that we deal with
what it means to be human [respect] in a way that challenges
fundamentally the present scientific methodology.
In
short, the present issue is by its nature highly inflammatory.
As a human being and a client you, Katherine, do not deserve to be
subject to consistently abusive activity by others. But you have
chosen to take sides with the regressive direction, and you are
treading on thin ice with the client activists! To me,
its like
the anti-segregationists would have been wrong if theyd sent death
threats to the family of that bus driver, they would have lost
their sense of proportion. And I think people who harass you on
this matter have also a problem with their sense of proportion.
Respectfully
Andrew Phelps
|
|