chokyi lodro wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 6:12 pm
Johnny Dangerous wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 4:33 pm
Malcolm wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 2:28 pm
Proper diagnostics must account for causes.
There are all kinds of idiopathic diseases which are defined primarily by symptoms.
Correct. And for many mental health conditions, the cause becomes somewhat irrelevant to both the patient and practitioner. The damage is already done, and - save for cases of counselling to address deep-seated behaviours caused by trauma - it is much more important and practical to address how the patient can safely live with the condition. Theorising about the genesis gives way to management and treatment, and yes, often pharmaceutical means are necessary.
As someone who has suffered poor mental health, I can certainly say that addressing the cause would not help one iota, but that medication, coping mechanisms, a support network, and learning how to live the best life I can live despite it do. None of that has addressed the fathomless question of "why?" because it's unknown to me, my psychiatrist and medical science.
edit: I should say that "learning how to live the best life I can live" would naturally include CBT, if the health service offered it here!
Yeah, well one of the things that basic Buddhist psychology can and is offering to the Western paradigm is de-pathologizing mental “illness” somewhat.
Many mental health disorders are clearly just more extreme ends of a spectrum of human experience and treating them as “curable” illnesses rather than simply manageable tendencies is not always a great approach.
One of my main teachers is both a Loppon and Western mental health practitioner, his general attitude seems to be to de pathologize, normalize and to simply teach people to manage the tendencies we refer to as anxiety, depression, ocd, etc. To “step away from the battle” somewhat, to use an Acceptance and Commitment therapy phrase.
Of course things get more complex when we look at more severe conditions like Bipolar I or Sxhizophrenia, but simply not identifying people as diseased or apart from “normal” experience is helpful I think.
I work in the addiction world and I see both the upsides of treating it as a disease, and the significant downsides.
Obviously in Buddhist terms, “why” is not some mysterious thing -in a general sense- because we can always know that aversion, attachment, and ignorance are “why”, regardless of more specific causes.
I think sometimes specifics are good for people to know - for instance understanding how we have reacted to trauma, etc. However, looking for why’s can really turn to navel gazing quickly.