Why do we say an emotional response to living is a mental health problem?
Mental Health is a euphemism for mental illness.
Mental Illness language was made up by people in a group who were over privileged by power.
Mental Illness language inherently provides a moral right and wrong of humans and is about power.
Mental Illness narrative is maintained by groups who are privileged by power.
Groups of people often say being part of their group leads to an increased risk of mental health needs.
Different groups describe different people in society.
Given that the humans in all the groups are humans, is their distress that gets referred to as mental health problems, not an eminently human experience, equal to all other human experiences?
Emotional expression are understandable in eminently human as part of living.
Mental health and mental illness are essentially the same thing.
Previously less powerful groups are now using the vehicle of mental health structures to feel more powerful.
Groups who have understandably used the mental health narrative to access power, eventually become disempowered by the power inherent in the mental health industry that does not have interest in other groups being empowered.
Mental Health language has not led to better quality of life for people.
Mental Health and related industry's have become an irreplaceable economic model to keep money moving around, create employment and to avoid addressing the inequalities of living.
Humans provide governments with platforms.
What we call human rights are observed, and associated economies such as design, marketing, higher education, catering etc are developed in the name of menta health.
Anti Stigma campaigns are self defeating as most people end up with a label to satisfy that we are all 'the same' ( but we are not - we are wonderfully unique ).
NGO's based in philosophies and ideologies of their own, sacrifice those values to claim their share of the economy...but pretend they haven't done so.
Marketing and social media is now far more powerful that science as evidence based practice.
Evidence based practice is really just the views of those who have funds to demonstrate that which they wish to say is evidence.
Drug companies ( Pharma) make enormous profits.
Economies would collapse without Pharma economics being included.
Debates about the villainy of Pharma forget the undiscussed 'benefits' to people in society by way of keeping the economy going.
'Benefits' from economies are not fairly distributed.
Economic inequalities eventually get referred to as mental health problems when people express their response to inequalities.
Economic equalities should be called just that.
Pretending that emotional responses to economic inequalities is a mental health problem is perpetuating the economic inequalities of a person who is distressed by economics inequalities.
Naming any inequalities, prejudice and harm, when expressed as emotional distress, as a mental health problem perpetuates the inequalities.
Psychiatric drugs do not treat specific illnesses.
Naming Illness of the brain and treatment by discrete drug is being untrue.
It is a risky discussion to challenge that 'mental illness' is made up, as someone or group might get offended.
Some people find taking different mind altering substances to be of value.
Finding value in taking mind altering drugs is another part of being human for some people.
Pretending we understand exactly what someone is achieving in the brain when taking a drugs is silly.
Pretending that one drug is legitimate and another is not because someone in power says so is also silly.
Silliness is not bad if we choose to be silly.
But silliness that oppresses people is called harm.
Harming others leads to emotional distress.
Emotional distress caused by someone doing harm is the responsibility of the person harming someone to stop doing that.
Taking psychedelics is now mainstream fashion.
Taking psychedelics licensed through the funding of hedge funds, and in the company of medical / health professionals, bares almost no relationship to taking psilocybin, LSD, MDMA, Ketamine with friends.
Modern use of psychedelics as 'treatment' is a bizarre conflation of the original ideas of psychedelics.
Modern day narratives of psychedelics has become an economy - hedge funds, therapists, education, politics etc.
Fund raising for mental health 'research', 'services', 'Anti Stigma' campaigns etc. is a separate economy.
Separate economies that divert money out of mental health services are confusing.
The narrative that we need more money in mental health could potentially be saved by other economies ceasing to take money out of the mental health industry.
Naming that Illness of the brain being untrue is now a risky discussion as someone might get offended, even when it is said with curiosity and love.
Speaking dissonance is not allowed in some situations.
Speaking dissonance is allowed in other situations.
Situations of dissonance are set by agendas of people who often have a different agenda again, but use the populist agendas to serve their own needs.
People who run the agendas are often making money from this process: process that ultimately sets people against one another.
Setting people against one another is likely to cause emotional distress.
Emotional distress is generally seen to need a mental health response.
Mental Health is a euphemism for 'mental illness'.
Changing one label to another is another agenda that is set by people who didn't set that change agenda.
People accept new agendas and labels so they feel part of a group.
People could feel part of groups without labels of agendas set by others.
Being together without labels that create illusion of people being the 'same' is possible.
No two people are the same
Recognizing how we experience living when we are with someone else does not make us the same.
Recognizing that we are experiencing a moment and sharing that experience can feel good.
Sharing experiences can feel bad.
Creating labels to say that humans expressing an experinces have illness of the brain is odd.
Humans have experiences.
No two experiences can be the same.
We can share our version of experiences with each other without being labelled as being in the same group.
We do not share experiences with people not in our 'group' very often.
The Mental Health / Mental Illness / labelling industry has interrupted our sense of being with human experiences.
The Mental Health industry, labels and economy has disrupted natural human experiences and behavior's with one another.
Having emotions, as a human being, in the context of living has become an industry that the economy relies on.
Being human in all that you are is not okay, but we say it is okay as this is what we are told to say even though it doesn't feel okay.
When we say it doesn't feel okay, it is said to be okay as a mental health problem because we are told not to stigmatize not being okay in the face of living, as a mental health industry.
Not being okay in the context of living is a mental health problem.
Mental Health is a euphemism for 'mental illness'.
Each person is different
Each person finds the experience of living different the experience of living that other have.
Being along side a human and their experience of living is a beautiful thing to experience.
Being along side another being does not need to be turned into an industry.
Being along side another human could be done between 'groups' as well.
Different 'groups' probably have many more resonating shared experiences of being human than we talk about.
'Mental illness' and mental health are economic models.
Being human with one another is not an economic model.
Perhaps just be with each other.
Perhaps their is no industry in human experience.
Perhaps all those who make money and power in the industry of 'mental health' , including the 'groups', could be supported with the experience of emotions if they let go of their power.
Perhaps support for people letting go of the power, income, prestige etc. could be supported by other humans.
Perhaps people being supported to let go of the power of the 'mental health industry' could be supported without an industry being formed to do so.
Legislation that removes a person's right to freedom based on the moral views of another person is inherently not based in human rights.
Stopping accepting legislation that removes peoples right to freedom based on moral judgment would be good for everybody's freedom.
Offering humanity and connection when a person is expressing distress is beautiful, but does not remove their rights
Being with a person without the moral judgement and removing a persons freedom is going to be experienced as less distressing.
Each person values being supported in connection in a different way.
If everyone one needs a different way, then anyone could potentially be of value when another person is in distress.
If anyone could potentially be the connected, compassionate person to be with someone in distress, then all the roles of the industry become obsolete.
If the industry is obsolete, we may become more free than when we observe the constraints of the industry.
What if we just put down the 'tools' (there are no tools) and sat with any person in distress?
What if people could talk about their experiences of living and dying without an industry?
What if towns, villages and country areas were awash with people being with each other and recognizing their common humanity not their differences by groups and roles in the industry's?
What if the mental (illness) health industry is the problem?
What if love and connection is the answer?
What if love and connection is free?
What if the energy expended on maintaining the industry is expended on finding connection and love between us?
What if no one makes money from human connection in moments of distress?
What is no one becomes the head of the mental health industry?
What if no one is the 'lead' [insert your profession or industry role]?
What if connection and love is right in front of each of us?