Mental health recovery without meds or therapy?

wiredmoose3 said:Let’s be clear—this topic is excellent. I’m a huge advocate for anything "natural"—if that's even the right word for it—and I truly hope this takes off. But...
I might be off base here—but based on your posts— Jeremy Alvarez5Is it just me, or can anyone else sense a certain... let's call it an aversion to traditional medicine reading through this?
Regarding Boldano—do you actually have a license, a solid reference, or even a basic recommendation to back that up?

I'm basically from another planet, so I don't even have a Social Security number. 🙄 Actually, I *am* the future. Do you like me? (Barely).

My Aversion isn't directed at conventional medicine, capitalism, communism, Jesus, or Ante Gotovina—it's just about the downsides of any given system.

And honestly, whether I end up being a psychologist or an X-Men character or maybe even He-Man—does that even change the validity of what I'm saying? Like, does my mental state affect whether the facts are true? I guess my take is that in certain stages, there really isn't any other way out than medication. But I'm talking about self-help where it's possible, and techniques to prevent different kinds of mental breakdowns before they happen. For instance, people dealing with neuroses—those issues usually flare up during specific moments or under certain circumstances; they aren't constant. These people are still living their lives, fighting their battles, and falling in love; their neurosis just surfaces here and there. Now, someone experiencing psychosis—if they still have even a tiny grain of awareness left—there might actually be a way to reach them. You could potentially guide them to a state where they can actually listen more effectively, allowing them to slowly re-educate themselves. It's about rebuilding those faulty value systems that create all that fear, anxiety, depression, panic, or narcissism, etc. So, instead of just telling them something is "good" or "bad," you find a way to explain why a certain path is bad *for them*, so they can truly internalize it. To get the "heart" to listen, you first have to bring them to a state where they are capable of learning, listening, and opening up their capacity to receive information...

wiredmoose3

Keith Jones76 said:Is that really it then... 🤷 I guess...

It’s not like you aren't right. It's just that (in my opinion) you aren't quite ready to call it "treatment" and swap out what we've been doing until now. A philosophical perspective? Sure, fine. That whole 'Holy Spirit' thing, as they say. A way to approach life, or at least a shot at it—yeah, one possibility. But a significant cure? A revolution? ...No.

I mean, is it even fair to call it "treatment" when you're talking about someone who, say, has been on a revolving door of different medications for the last five or six years without seeing any real progress? And even if they *do* change—how are you supposed to know if it's because they actually changed, or if they just managed to flip their whole philosophy or value system during a brief moment of clarity? That system might be exactly what created their despair in the first place. Is treatment just handing out placebos? Like, you convince someone they've been given something helpful, and they find the courage to keep going because of that belief? So, was it the "pill" that changed them, or was it their mindset?

The thing is, I don't want to just talk about philosophical influence here. I want to look at all the techniques that help, specifically those that aren't standard meds or the usual "help" from professionals who have been trained to believe that someone with certain symptoms is basically incurable. Why would we only look for a cure for that kind of "incurability" through biochemistry and pharmacotherapy? If the root of the madness isn't biochemical, but instead stems from how a person reacts to stress, trauma, and the cycle of repeating that trauma because of their lifestyle or worldview, then shouldn't our solutions reflect that too?

I’m from another planet—I don't even have a Social Security number. 🙄 Actually, I am the future. Do you find me attractive? (Bare).

I smell cynicism...🤷...personally, I shudder at those "Duhovnjak" types who possess that particular trait... sigh... (I'm familiar with the Barin collection 🙂)

An Aversion isn't necessarily directed against conventional medicine,

It seemed that way...🤷

Regarding whether I'm crazy, or will be—whether I'm a psychologist, an X-Men, or a He-Man—how does any of that change what I'm saying? In terms of whether it is actually correct, or true?

So why is it such a struggle to answer? Don't get me wrong—your attempt is noble and clearly comes from a good place—I'm just curious about where it all stems from...

wiredmoose3 said:

I’m from another planet—I don't even have a Social Security number. 🙄 Actually, I am the future. Do you find me attractive? (Bare).

I smell cynicism...🤷...personally, I shudder at those "Duhovnjak" types who possess that particular trait... sigh... (I'm familiar with the Barin collection 🙂)

An Aversion isn't necessarily directed against conventional medicine,

It seemed that way...🤷

Regarding whether I'm crazy, or will be—whether I'm a psychologist, an X-Men, or a He-Man—how does any of that change what I'm saying? In terms of whether it is actually correct, or true?

So why is it such a struggle to answer? Don't get me wrong—your attempt is noble and clearly comes from a good place—I'm just curious about where it all stems from...

So, you won't let a Duhovnjak be cynical, but everyone else gets a free pass? I don't know, that seems a bit lopsided, doesn't it? I mean, just imagine—it’s almost a funny thought—a Duhovnjak who's actually incapable of being cynical. It's a wild concept, I guess. 🤷

wiredmoose3 says:

So, why is it such a big deal to just answer the question? Don't get me wrong, I totally get it—this whole half-hearted attempt feels noble, and I'm sure you mean well, really. I guess I'm just curious about where it's all coming from...

The drive to actually fix up the world around you starts with the individual—it’s that internal refusal to just sit there and accept suffering, provided you’ve actually got enough empathy to care and the energy to move. It’s not like I mind answering people; honestly, I’ve never been one to dodge a question, whether it’s out in a public thread or sliding into my DMs. But lately, I feel like I’m getting asked this one specific thing way too often. People see how I talk and they start assuming I’m some licensed psychologist or maybe some trained specialist from an alternative wellness retreat or a specific school of thought. I guess I might eventually have to add some kind of disclaimer to my bio or something. Look, there isn’t some official authority behind me handing out credentials. What I’m offering here is just... well, it's a mix of lived experience, whatever knowledge I've picked up along the way, and the perspectives I share. It’s why people keep asking if I have a license, which makes me feel a little cynical, I suppose, especially since you could probably figure it out yourself if you actually scrolled down a few threads to see how I engage with topics. It feels like most people aren't really reading closely, but hey, I guess we can just check that off the list for today too.

Look, I’m not claiming to have any official authority here. I don’t have a degree or a license from anyone. I’m just someone who’s been trying to make sense of the world, life, and my own head since the day I was born. Before I even think about asking anyone else to bless me with their "expertise" or credentials, I wanted to offer up some thoughts based on logic, a bit of lived experience, and a whole lot of random reading I’ve done on my own. I figure it’s probably good enough to withstand whatever criticism the experts—or the non-experts—on this forum throw my way. It’s funny, really. You see people like Tolle, who aren't exactly "experts," pouring themselves into new books just to repackage old wisdom in a fresh way. But the second they get labeled an expert, they start handing out licenses, getting pushed into niche corners, or treated like some kind of cult leaders until mainstream psychology eventually decides to swallow them up—provided someone finds a weird enough way to frame a phenomenon as "scientific proof." And then, within twenty-four hours, the narrative shifts. One minute you hear that Vitamin C is great for the flu, and the next, some morning news segment is claiming it doesn't help at all. Meanwhile, my aunt is still catching every cold that comes her way every winter. The "specialists" will tell you there’s no cure for the flu because *they* have the licenses, so they must know best. They’ll dismiss chicken soup as just a "practical alternative" because it lacks scientific backing, even though half the experts are arguing with the other half about whether Vitamin C even matters. I guess what I mean is, when someone actually offers a solution that works, people tend to brush it off because that person doesn't have the right paperwork. We should probably put a disclaimer at the top of these posts. After all, "professionals" don't exactly kill their patients; they mostly just treat them by giving everyone a different diagnosis. If someone actually gets better, the doctor just claims they made a mistake with the initial diagnosis, because according to the textbooks, what they were treating was supposed to be incurable. It feels like a way to charge people for ignorance and reckless experimentation—especially when these doctors are so overworked that every one of those 40 or 50 patients in a day just gets fifteen minutes of being ignored or told they can't help themselves, followed by a prescription that usually covers the symptoms. I'm not saying I'm against the traditional approach. It’s just... man, between the inefficiency, the religious neuroses, the addictions, the aggression, the booze, the withdrawal, and the constant fear people live in, it's a lot. You see psychiatrists leading people into battles just to wipe out opponents, or psychologists on TV admitting they wouldn't even know how to handle their own depression. Then you have people who claim they don't believe in churches, yet the moment their kids hit a psychological breaking point, they run straight to priests—who are often too busy competing with other priests over whose religious concept is "correct" to actually help. Sometimes these institutions are even protective of their own, even when dealing with horrific abuses in care facilities. So, I guess I have to ask myself: where do my intentions fit into all of this mess? And honestly, if I sound a little cynical, does that really matter that much? 😁

wiredmoose3: — It’s a bit much, isn't it? — Just my observation from the sidelines.

Jeremy Alvarez5 As specified by wiredmoose3: You don't allow Duhovnjak to be cynical—but everyone else gets a free pass? Imagine a Duhovnjak who's actually too incompetent to pull off being cynical. 🤷 And what’s wrong with a little cynicism? It actually makes the whole thing more interesting—if you ask me. 😁

Since you’re already pulling from Wikipedia—I’ll go ahead and quote:

Cynicism—derived from the Ancient Greek *kynismos*, which basically translates to "like a dog" in terms of its biting sharpness—originally described the specific worldview and lifestyle adopted by the ancient Cynics.

Cynicism today seems to be more of a lifestyle choice than an attitude—a way to intentionally mock someone else's values while simultaneously calling their entire moral compass into question. It’s a bit of a cheap shot, really.
Cynicism can actually be a sign of resignation—the ultimate white flag for the cynic. It’s what happens when you still hold onto your ideals, but you've finally accepted that they're just impossible to pull off in the real world.

People constantly trip up by using cynicism as a synonym for sarcasm—it’s a common mistake. While sarcasm usually boils down to those bitter, dark-humored jabs we all know, cynicism actually goes much deeper—it’s more about a person’s fundamental outlook on life and their core character. Sarcasm isn't an expression of cynicism any more than every spiteful remark is necessarily driven by pure malice.

The quote doesn't really fit—not even close. I suppose I should probably say something—though I’m not entirely sure what there is to add at this stage. The experience of a spiritual person—it’s a bit of a different beast entirely.
The way you spend the rest of this post tearing down science only serves to validate the Quote—it’s pretty clear you don't have much of a grasp on the subject. You’re leaning way too hard on generalizations, which is ironic considering how much you preach about "individualized approaches"—though, of course, you only highlight that when it suits your narrative to create a negative generalization.

I’ve read enough of your posts—both before this thread started and since—to see you clearly have the knowledge. However, it lacks any real substance—it’s all deeply philosophical and likely only makes sense to those who already speak the language—which leads me to one conclusion: you lack practical experience.

Besides, you’re being a bit contradictory—one minute you're all for the pills, and the next—well, you aren't.

Regarding those credentials—degrees, certifications, being tied to some specific Ivy League school or local institution—it can honestly mean everything or absolutely nothing. The answer you gave me could have come from any random guy passing by on the street in Chicago—I was looking for something more substantial—something that actually digs into the granular details of the work itself.

Maybe I took all of this a bit too seriously—honestly, it’s probably my own fault.

Look, this is just my take on things—don't let it throw you off your game.
Best of luck out there!

wiredmoose3

Jeremy Alvarez5 said:wiredmoose3

It’s not really that a better way doesn't exist; I guess it’s more just that you haven't found it yet.

Actually, I think the reality is that nobody truly knows anything—everyone is just guessing and trying to act like an expert.
In any field, whether it's medicine or hard science, you constantly see some new "prophet" stepping up to use the current situation to push their own little theories, but at the end of the day, it's all just speculation...

The only truth I tend to trust comes from a lab setting, where you can actually isolate a gene causing a specific disease and either swap it out or remove it. Though, I suppose that opens up a much more difficult question...

Where does a person's individual personality end, and a mental illness begin?
Similarly, if we decide to strip away certain symptoms of a condition that actually shape who a person is, we are essentially changing the human being itself, which might not necessarily be a good thing....

wiredmoose3
:

The only truth I really buy comes from the lab—you know, when you isolate a specific gene that causes a disease, then swap it out or just get rid of it. Though, honestly, to me, that just opens up a whole other set of questions that are way harder to wrap your head around... Where do we draw the line between someone’s actual personality and where a mental illness begins? It’s like, if we strip away symptoms that actually shape who a person is, aren't we basically changing the person themselves? And I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing....

If you look at it, a certain genetic makeup functions as one cohesive unit, one individual, right up until it hits an attacker. In that sense, the illness was just the result of facing a specific type of threat, and there are plenty of different threats out there. People carry all sorts of different genes; some make us resilient to one thing, others to something else, especially since our genetic mechanisms are constantly interacting with all kinds of external stimuli.

As living beings, we soak up these factors during our lifetime and respond through reproduction, passing that information down to our legacy. So, I guess trying to intervene directly with genes to create a universal "healthy" human feels like a totally unnatural attempt to tweak a mechanism that the human species has used to fight its way through every kind of struggle up until now.

Then there's the other issue: we're increasingly becoming problems for one another instead of cooperating. Since we're social creatures who want to protect our kids, our ancestors, and the friends we owe our survival and happy lives to, dealing with hostility toward other people is this eternal challenge. It's the root of all anxiety, really. There isn't a bigger trauma than being at odds with your own kind, because deep down, every part of us is wired against destroying our own species—it's through each other that we find fulfillment. To try and isolate "humanity" as if it were just a single gene and cross it out? That sounds like trying to kill the soul within a person. After all, the entire body evolved specifically to serve that soul. Maybe the "illness" isn't what we carry inside us, but how we treat each other. Do you truly believe you're completely determined by your genes? Like you can't find peace, or freedom, or act like a decent human being, or even just exist as yourself? I think a human is defined by the ability to listen to one another and influence one another—by how we rise above other species through our love and our courage.

wiredmoose3 said:wiredmoose3: — It’s a bit much, isn't it? — Just my observation from the sidelines.

Jeremy Alvarez5 As specified by wiredmoose3: You don't allow Duhovnjak to be cynical—but everyone else gets a free pass? Imagine a Duhovnjak who's actually too incompetent to pull off being cynical. 🤷 And what’s wrong with a little cynicism? It actually makes the whole thing more interesting—if you ask me. 😁

Since you’re already pulling from Wikipedia—I’ll go ahead and quote:

Cynicism—derived from the Ancient Greek *kynismos*, which basically translates to "like a dog" in terms of its biting sharpness—originally described the specific worldview and lifestyle adopted by the ancient Cynics.

Cynicism today seems to be more of a lifestyle choice than an attitude—a way to intentionally mock someone else's values while simultaneously calling their entire moral compass into question. It’s a bit of a cheap shot, really.
Cynicism can actually be a sign of resignation—the ultimate white flag for the cynic. It’s what happens when you still hold onto your ideals, but you've finally accepted that they're just impossible to pull off in the real world.

People constantly trip up by using cynicism as a synonym for sarcasm—it’s a common mistake. While sarcasm usually boils down to those bitter, dark-humored jabs we all know, cynicism actually goes much deeper—it’s more about a person’s fundamental outlook on life and their core character. Sarcasm isn't an expression of cynicism any more than every spiteful remark is necessarily driven by pure malice.

The quote doesn't really fit—not even close. I suppose I should probably say something—though I’m not entirely sure what there is to add at this stage. The experience of a spiritual person—it’s a bit of a different beast entirely.
The way you spend the rest of this post tearing down science only serves to validate the Quote—it’s pretty clear you don't have much of a grasp on the subject. You’re leaning way too hard on generalizations, which is ironic considering how much you preach about "individualized approaches"—though, of course, you only highlight that when it suits your narrative to create a negative generalization.

I’ve read enough of your posts—both before this thread started and since—to see you clearly have the knowledge. However, it lacks any real substance—it’s all deeply philosophical and likely only makes sense to those who already speak the language—which leads me to one conclusion: you lack practical experience.

Besides, you’re being a bit contradictory—one minute you're all for the pills, and the next—well, you aren't.

Regarding those credentials—degrees, certifications, being tied to some specific Ivy League school or local institution—it can honestly mean everything or absolutely nothing. The answer you gave me could have come from any random guy passing by on the street in Chicago—I was looking for something more substantial—something that actually digs into the granular details of the work itself.

Maybe I took all of this a bit too seriously—honestly, it’s probably my own fault.

Look, this is just my take on things—don't let it throw you off your game.
Best of luck out there!

I think you missed the point, honestly. If you read a little closer, you'll see you're kind of patronizing me here—labeling things with irrelevant nonsense and drifting away from what we're actually talking about. You're trying to pin me down as being against something I already explicitly said I wasn't part of. It feels like a lot of generalizations, focusing more on me personally than the topic, and then throwing out those "one in a hundred" type conclusions. I don't know, there's a certain irony in your approach if you look at it closely. The whole thread is about healing without relying on pills or doctors; that’s right there in the title. We aren't saying "throw your medication out the window, you don't need it." Maybe try disciplining that black-and-white way of thinking so you can actually spot the nuance in what's being discussed.

...let's try this again..
Regardless of what kind of thread you decide to start, if you’re going to present yourself as some enlightened soul offering guidance—without actually mentioning any of your past experience or track record (which, frankly, matters to me, even if it isn't documented)—then asking about it is a perfectly reasonable question. You took that as an insult, and instead of answering, you just pivoted to being incredibly cynical and dismissive. In my book, that immediately undermines the persona you're trying to project. Look, I have high standards. It’s genuinely baffling how you expect anyone to trust your "expertise" based on nothing but snippets from Wikipedia, sarcasm, and dodging questions. You haven't given me a single tangible thing to latch onto to say, "Okay, maybe this person can actually help me." Post after post, you're just proving that you aren't ready to deal with people—especially not in an online community🙄...or do you honestly believe you won't run into these kinds of inquiries again? Do you think working with people is just easy and effortless?

In your last post, you had the nerve to bring up my method...really??

"The topic is healing without pills or doctors, according to the title. It’s not a topic about throwing your medication out the window or claiming you don't need it."
😕😕

"Learn to discipline your black-and-white thinking so you can actually recognize what things are really about."
Me, being patronizing? So, any opinion that doesn't align with yours is irrelevant? You clearly struggle with criticism—even when it's well-intentioned, in this case.

"Labeling things as irrelevant nonsense"
What might be irrelevant to you is vital to me... so much for having an individual approach.

"Focusing on my person,"
Since you haven't provided anything else of substance?

"You didn't understand, read more carefully"
Same here.

That’s all from me on this thread.
Once again,good luck!

rustyskipper7 said:wiredmoose3

Actually, I think the reality is that nobody truly knows anything—everyone is just guessing and trying to act like an expert.
In any field, whether it's medicine or hard science, you constantly see some new "prophet" stepping up to use the current situation to push their own little theories, but at the end of the day, it's all just speculation...

The only truth I tend to trust comes from a lab setting, where you can actually isolate a gene causing a specific disease and either swap it out or remove it. Though, I suppose that opens up a much more difficult question...

Where does a person's individual personality end, and a mental illness begin?
Similarly, if we decide to strip away certain symptoms of a condition that actually shape who a person is, we are essentially changing the human being itself, which might not necessarily be a good thing....

Mental illness really comes down to when someone can no longer function normally within society. 😉

That’s why, for instance, I view schizoid personality disorder more as a character trait,
whereas schizotypal falls squarely under a psychopathological diagnosis.

wiredmoose3 said:...let's try this again..
Regardless of what kind of thread you decide to start, if you’re going to present yourself as some enlightened soul offering guidance—without actually mentioning any of your past experience or track record (which, frankly, matters to me, even if it isn't documented)—then asking about it is a perfectly reasonable question. You took that as an insult, and instead of answering, you just pivoted to being incredibly cynical and dismissive. In my book, that immediately undermines the persona you're trying to project. Look, I have high standards. It’s genuinely baffling how you expect anyone to trust your "expertise" based on nothing but snippets from Wikipedia, sarcasm, and dodging questions. You haven't given me a single tangible thing to latch onto to say, "Okay, maybe this person can actually help me." Post after post, you're just proving that you aren't ready to deal with people—especially not in an online community🙄...or do you honestly believe you won't run into these kinds of inquiries again? Do you think working with people is just easy and effortless?

In your last post, you had the nerve to bring up my method...really??

"The topic is healing without pills or doctors, according to the title. It’s not a topic about throwing your medication out the window or claiming you don't need it."
😕😕

"Learn to discipline your black-and-white thinking so you can actually recognize what things are really about."
Me, being patronizing? So, any opinion that doesn't align with yours is irrelevant? You clearly struggle with criticism—even when it's well-intentioned, in this case.

"Labeling things as irrelevant nonsense"
What might be irrelevant to you is vital to me... so much for having an individual approach.

"Focusing on my person,"
Since you haven't provided anything else of substance?

"You didn't understand, read more carefully"
Same here.

That’s all from me on this thread.
Once again,good luck!

But you didn't ask me anything, either.

Are you seriously asking me—on an online forum where everyone is basically anonymous by nature—to provide some kind of high-level institutional validation? You want me to sing your praises? I guess not.🤷

Besides, if you’re facing a real issue, what are you looking for? Someone who has gone through the exact same thing to fix it for you?

You mentioned that it matters to you whether someone has "experience" or formal credentials to back up their claims. But think about it—what about someone who retreats into a monastery or a cave for five or ten years with people just like them, writes something down, and then people are still debating those thoughts and ideas two, five, or seven thousand years later? If a book like that just happened to land in your lap, written in a language you could actually understand, what would you do? Would you wait to run it by your therapist first to see what they think after reading a few sentences, or would you actually form your own conclusion based on the content?

I get the feeling that maybe, just maybe, your real struggle here is a lack of self-confidence. There are thousands upon thousands of different philosophies and ways to approach life out there, all with millions of followers, and they're all wildly different. Even if I had the endorsement of a hundred Gestalt therapists and five hundred patients who were successfully cured, how much weight does that carry against a hundred psychiatrists pushing a different method or five hundred people for whom a specific treatment failed—or worse, stayed silent because the treatment drove them to jump out a window? Not much. At the end of the day, you're left with yourself, and you're the one who decides if something works for you or not.

The whole point of a forum—whether it stays anonymous or not—is to hash out specific ideas and perspectives. If you have a genuine problem, and since you seem pretty unsure of yourself right now, why not just state the problem? That way we can actually build an introduction to it. Do you agree that insecurity might be part of the issue? Do you want to talk about that? If you have a problem with the method I suggested for mental wellness, then go ahead—tear it apart and find the flaws. Look, there are plenty of people out there with plenty of knowledge and brains who simply don't have the guts to live by what they know, but that doesn't stop them from sharing that truth with others. If you think my occasional cynicism or a typo makes me incapable of speaking the truth, then I guess there isn't much point in us talking, is there? Phew, luckily I picked up a typing manual ages ago and I can touch-type ten fingers faster than most pros. I don't have any fancy certificates for it, but hey, if you need something typed up, I guess I could help you out.

Your post is so incredibly vague and contradictory—honestly, there's zero point in even trying to reply to it... I’d much rather clear up this space for people who actually want your help

Why bother continuing this conversation with me?

Do you even read my posts? I've already said goodbye to you twice now... but fine, I can make it a third time if it makes you feel better-
Best of luck to you!

Keith Jones76 said:It’s one thing to sound like you have an answer, but it’s another thing entirely to actually provide one. I’m asking you specifically—how exactly would you effectively manage 40 to 50 people a day? I’m asking because that is the actual volume we're looking at. Do you actually know, or not?

Just like with a narcissist. self-absorbed. Call it whatever you want—a collection of symptoms, whatever. But how then would you treat such a cluster of symptoms? Go ahead, tell me. These are real human beings, not some theoretical concept you can just ignore because they don't fit into your neat little framework.
When someone like that walks through your door, what happens? What does "self-help" even look like for them? What kind of instructions are you giving? Again, I'm only asking because these people actually exist.

And why on earth should he be expected to process 40 to 50 people a day? The individual is discussing self-help, not proposing some omnipotent, all-encompassing medical treatment. I simply don't understand this tendency to jump to conclusions and lash out at any line of reasoning that deviates from conventional, mainstream medical models. This is especially true when you consider that the conventional approach often merely treats the symptoms rather than the root cause, essentially creating a cycle of dependency where people become incapable of managing their own issues, constantly checking to see where their pills are just to get through the day. Perhaps certain types of disorders might be more easily addressed through alternative or psychoanalytic methods—some may be easy, others perhaps impossible—but science itself is the ultimate proof that we shouldn't view things through such a narrow lens, given its constant evolution and its history of Copernican shifts. Why must a specific approach be required to solve every known psychological disorder automatically? If it proves successful in even one single niche, then it is a success.

Jeffrey Barrett2 said:And why on earth should he be expected to process 40 to 50 people a day? The individual is discussing self-help, not proposing some omnipotent, all-encompassing medical treatment. I simply don't understand this tendency to jump to conclusions and lash out at any line of reasoning that deviates from conventional, mainstream medical models. This is especially true when you consider that the conventional approach often merely treats the symptoms rather than the root cause, essentially creating a cycle of dependency where people become incapable of managing their own issues, constantly checking to see where their pills are just to get through the day. Perhaps certain types of disorders might be more easily addressed through alternative or psychoanalytic methods—some may be easy, others perhaps impossible—but science itself is the ultimate proof that we shouldn't view things through such a narrow lens, given its constant evolution and its history of Copernican shifts. Why must a specific approach be required to solve every known psychological disorder automatically? If it proves successful in even one single niche, then it is a success.

Well, that is fundamentally incorrect. It all depends on what kind of medication is being taken. There are psychiatric diagnoses so severe that patients unfortunately must rely on medications that cause significant sedation.
The drugs used for anxiety, depression, social phobia, or panic attacks are typically antidepressants that don't induce sedation. You cannot simply label people on medication as weaklings who are incapable of handling their problems. For many, these medications are exactly what allows them to reintegrate into society and live alongside healthy individuals on equal footing. It is quite another matter if someone is abusing anxiolytics, but even those individuals need help finding a way out, as they clearly cannot endure the weight of their symptoms when they resort to that. One ought to show a bit more empathy; judging is always the easiest path.

Furthermore, isn't it true that all pills essentially treat consequences? Are there actually any medications that target the actual cause?
Take blood pressure medication, for instance; does it address the underlying cause or merely the consequence? 😁

redranger2 said:Well, that is fundamentally incorrect. It all depends on what kind of medication is being taken. There are psychiatric diagnoses so severe that patients unfortunately must rely on medications that cause significant sedation.
The drugs used for anxiety, depression, social phobia, or panic attacks are typically antidepressants that don't induce sedation. You cannot simply label people on medication as weaklings who are incapable of handling their problems. For many, these medications are exactly what allows them to reintegrate into society and live alongside healthy individuals on equal footing. It is quite another matter if someone is abusing anxiolytics, but even those individuals need help finding a way out, as they clearly cannot endure the weight of their symptoms when they resort to that. One ought to show a bit more empathy; judging is always the easiest path.

Furthermore, isn't it true that all pills essentially treat consequences? Are there actually any medications that target the actual cause?
Take blood pressure medication, for instance; does it address the underlying cause or merely the consequence? 😁

So, can you actually prevent high blood pressure just by popping a pill? I mean, if we’re looking at it from the angle that hypertension is triggered by things like slamming too much salt, certain physical sensations, or even how you handle your breathing... well, how does a single tablet solve that whole puzzle? In my mind, preventing high blood pressure isn't really about finding some magic pill that fixes everything instantly. It’s more about actually understanding what triggers it in the first place and then, I guess, having the discipline to act on that knowledge. If you know the salt is the culprit or that your stress levels are spiking your heart rate, the real prevention happens through lifestyle shifts—adjusting your diet or maybe working on some breathing techniques—rather than just relying on a prescription to override your habits. It feels like the solution lies in the awareness and the behavior, rather than just a quick fix in a bottle.

What I'm getting at here is that on one hand, you’re trying to dig into the root causes—which can be a million different things—but it would be so much easier if there was just a clear, direct link between what happened and why it actually happened. I guess everything gets complicated when that connection isn't obvious, right?

Look, when you’ve already taken a massive hit, you obviously need some kind of way to fix the damage. But if that negative energy keeps hitting you constantly? I guess nothing really changes. You're basically just feeding the sickness, and honestly, you end up draining your own battery in the absolute worst way possible.

Beyond just trying to dig into the root causes—which I know could be a huge, messy pile of different factors—I’ve really been thinking about this idea of "emptiness" versus "resistance," and how everything aligns. It's almost like seeking a kind of psycho-mental parallelism with whatever is happening in the world around you, just so you can hit those longer stretches of actual peace. I guess what I mean is, when someone finally manages to hold onto that sense of calm for a while, their subconscious actually gets a chance to breathe. It reaches a state where they can function normally without hitting that total burnout phase. You aren't wasting all your energy on neurotic outbursts or being constantly on the defensive, and you aren't losing sleep because you're fighting battles in your dreams instead of actually resting. It’s about finding that flow where you aren't just spinning your wheels.

Awakening

I guess you could say an Awakening is basically that state where you start feeling out reality by looking inward. It’s like, instead of just reacting blindly, you’re actually paying attention to your own thoughts and those physical sensations your body throws at you. The stuff our senses pick up on—that constant oscillation between what we feel and what we see—well, that kind of thing happens regardless of what we want. It’s just there. What actually stays in our control is how we choose to process those hits, you know? Like, how we handle those stimuli using a mix of intellect and intuition before we eventually land on a physical reaction. To me, that act of just... watching? That’s the real work. It steps in right where those old, mindless, automatic reactions usually take over—those knee-jerk responses triggered by even the tiniest bit of emotion. And if you can actually remember the results of that observation, you start gaining some pretty deep insight and... So, I’ve been chewing on that whole "who am I?" question lately. It’s one of those deep ones that usually just leads to a headache if you think about it too much, right? But honestly, I guess my take is that we’re essentially nobody and nothing. It sounds a bit heavy, I know, but hear me out. I feel like once people actually hit that point of Awareness—where they realize they have this capacity to just... be nothing—it changes everything. It’s like, when you finally embrace that ability to do absolutely nothing, you actually create this massive amount of breathing room. That empty space is basically what allows us to actually interact with each other in a meaningful way. Without that void, I guess we’re all just too full of ourselves to even notice anyone else. I guess what I'm trying to get at is... how do we actually achieve real communication? I mean, true connection that isn't just some mindless, automated reaction triggered by past experiences, old memories, or that thing people call "intuition." It’s more than just reacting to patterns, I suppose.

I guess that's how you actually learn to be okay with your own feelings—it’s like gaining some kind of perspective on your past life, or at least that's how I'd describe it after going through those long stretches of Awakening. You end up reaching this much higher level of awareness when looking at other people, too. It honestly just gives you the headspace to handle pretty much anything life throws at you.

It’s not like all those little habits or reactions that define who we are—our whole personality or character—are just going to vanish overnight. And because of that, the urge to reach for pills, junk food, or any kind of quick fix to soothe that specific type of inner restlessness isn't just going to disappear either.

The goal is to get to a point where you can actually make a choice. It’s about reaching a state where you can swap mindless reaction for observation, using that insight to gain real power through action. I’m not talking about someone just sitting there like a plant, totally frozen while a literal wildfire is sweeping through. I mean having the ability to step back from our own lived experiences—from those rigid patterns of habit that end up warping our psyche, then our bodies, and eventually distorting how we see reality itself. Being rational requires breathing room; you need space to actually think, to create some distance. Both the conscious and subconscious minds need that space to learn, to experience, and to grow. Plus, you need actual goals to give all that movement a purpose.

Omnis festinatio ex parte diaboli est, or as they say in the rural parts of the Midwest, the Devil’s always in a hurry.

redranger2 said:Well, that is fundamentally incorrect. It all depends on what kind of medication is being taken. There are psychiatric diagnoses so severe that patients unfortunately must rely on medications that cause significant sedation.
The drugs used for anxiety, depression, social phobia, or panic attacks are typically antidepressants that don't induce sedation. You cannot simply label people on medication as weaklings who are incapable of handling their problems. For many, these medications are exactly what allows them to reintegrate into society and live alongside healthy individuals on equal footing. It is quite another matter if someone is abusing anxiolytics, but even those individuals need help finding a way out, as they clearly cannot endure the weight of their symptoms when they resort to that. One ought to show a bit more empathy; judging is always the easiest path.

Furthermore, isn't it true that all pills essentially treat consequences? Are there actually any medications that target the actual cause?
Take blood pressure medication, for instance; does it address the underlying cause or merely the consequence? 😁

That is completely inaccurate, especially since you end up contradicting yourself in the very next sentence. This aggressive jumping by medication consumers—or those acting as their advocates—whenever anyone dares to critique these chemical substances or suggests an alternative solution, really just screams that the drugs are working on them. Someone heavily medicated for psychiatric issues isn't exactly functioning at their peak capacity; most of these drugs are engineered to block sensations rather than liberate them.

redranger2 said:Well, that is fundamentally incorrect. It all depends on what kind of medication is being taken. There are psychiatric diagnoses so severe that patients unfortunately must rely on medications that cause significant sedation.
The drugs used for anxiety, depression, social phobia, or panic attacks are typically antidepressants that don't induce sedation. You cannot simply label people on medication as weaklings who are incapable of handling their problems. For many, these medications are exactly what allows them to reintegrate into society and live alongside healthy individuals on equal footing. It is quite another matter if someone is abusing anxiolytics, but even those individuals need help finding a way out, as they clearly cannot endure the weight of their symptoms when they resort to that. One ought to show a bit more empathy; judging is always the easiest path.

Furthermore, isn't it true that all pills essentially treat consequences? Are there actually any medications that target the actual cause?
Take blood pressure medication, for instance; does it address the underlying cause or merely the consequence? 😁

No one was attacked here, nor was anyone labeled as weak. On the flip side, you have to look at the reality of the situation: there are plenty of people living in environments that actively fuel their conditions or behavioral issues, causing them to spiral even deeper. Often, these individuals don't even stop to consider the root causes, let alone attempt to tackle them. Then, you have a third group entirely—those who essentially wear mental health struggles like a badge of honor, flaunting their diagnoses as if they were personality traits. There is actually a tremendous amount of work to be done in addressing the underlying triggers through genuine conversation, empathy, deep analysis, and rigorous self-reflection. But let’s be honest: it’s much easier to just hand someone a prescription and send them on their way.

redranger2 said:Well, that is fundamentally incorrect. It all depends on what kind of medication is being taken. There are psychiatric diagnoses so severe that patients unfortunately must rely on medications that cause significant sedation.
The drugs used for anxiety, depression, social phobia, or panic attacks are typically antidepressants that don't induce sedation. You cannot simply label people on medication as weaklings who are incapable of handling their problems. For many, these medications are exactly what allows them to reintegrate into society and live alongside healthy individuals on equal footing. It is quite another matter if someone is abusing anxiolytics, but even those individuals need help finding a way out, as they clearly cannot endure the weight of their symptoms when they resort to that. One ought to show a bit more empathy; judging is always the easiest path.

Furthermore, isn't it true that all pills essentially treat consequences? Are there actually any medications that target the actual cause?
Take blood pressure medication, for instance; does it address the underlying cause or merely the consequence? 😁

Well, you just proved my point right there. There is a fundamental difference between addressing the root cause and merely masking the symptoms. You can exercise self-discipline regarding your diet and lifestyle to actually tackle the underlying issue—or at least blunt its impact—but then you have those pills that might stabilize your numbers for a few days while doing absolutely nothing to fix the actual problem.

Jeffrey Barrett2 said:That is completely inaccurate, especially since you end up contradicting yourself in the very next sentence. This aggressive jumping by medication consumers—or those acting as their advocates—whenever anyone dares to critique these chemical substances or suggests an alternative solution, really just screams that the drugs are working on them. Someone heavily medicated for psychiatric issues isn't exactly functioning at their peak capacity; most of these drugs are engineered to block sensations rather than liberate them.

No one was attacked here, nor was anyone labeled as weak. On the flip side, you have to look at the reality of the situation: there are plenty of people living in environments that actively fuel their conditions or behavioral issues, causing them to spiral even deeper. Often, these individuals don't even stop to consider the root causes, let alone attempt to tackle them. Then, you have a third group entirely—those who essentially wear mental health struggles like a badge of honor, flaunting their diagnoses as if they were personality traits. There is actually a tremendous amount of work to be done in addressing the underlying triggers through genuine conversation, empathy, deep analysis, and rigorous self-reflection. But let’s be honest: it’s much easier to just hand someone a prescription and send them on their way.

Well, you just proved my point right there. There is a fundamental difference between addressing the root cause and merely masking the symptoms. You can exercise self-discipline regarding your diet and lifestyle to actually tackle the underlying issue—or at least blunt its impact—but then you have those pills that might stabilize your numbers for a few days while doing absolutely nothing to fix the actual problem.

--- Of course high blood pressure has a cause. It can stem from a poor diet, but it can also be caused by genetics—let's not act like we're discovering fire here. But that isn't the point. My argument was that there is no pill that cures the cause. All pills treat the symptom.
And your claim that blood pressure pills only regulate pressure for a few days without improving anything is patently false. My mother has been on such medication for over 15 years, and thanks to them, she has normal blood pressure and a healthy heart. Naturally, this is paired with a healthy diet. When she missed her doses for a week, her pressure spiked immediately. Yes, they absolutely work.

Isusek😢...honestly, I find these sermons almost impossible to get through from the very first sentence.
Why can't the author just condense their thoughts into one coherent, sensible post before moving on to a massive list of points?🤔

Either actually cite a source, or just tell people which book to go pick up so they can read it themselves.

And even if a change actually happens—how would you even tell? How would you know if she suddenly flipped her entire "philosophy" or value system during some brief moment of clarity just to escape the despair it created? Or what?

Look, healing requires actual structural changes in the brain. Unless you think the brain is just a radiator for blood and the psyche is some mystical liquid floating around—in which case, I’m done with this conversation—that kind of shift doesn't happen overnight. It's like hair growth. You don't wake up with a full head of hair instantly; protein synthesis takes time for both, among other things.