On this blog: “Are You O.K.? Are you mad?”

Someone asked me “Are you O.K.? Should we be concerned about you? Are you really mad?”

Answer: Madness is the theme I write about, but its also a part of my aesthetic and stylistic approach. I play with it and embrace it, rather than trying to distance myself from it. I don’t try to be a dry, scholarly, anaesthetized, therapeutic commentator, but also an entertainer and artistic performer, if anything more in the romantic and renaissance traditions or Artaud’s Theatre of Absurd. combined with an ironical post-modern & Platonic element, than the one of modern psychology. That is a basic reflection of how I think these things ought to be done more often; as I say in my previous post, I feel the ‘personality’ element needs to be put into things more throughout society. The melding of life and art has also been as basic concern of great thinkers like Nietzsche, Oscar Wilde, and lots of others who I’m heavily influenced by.

I feel it would be a bit hypocritical to defend madness and those deemed ‘mad’ in an impeccably ‘sane’ manner, whereas by going in the opposite direction I feel I make my own writings more authentic and morally courageous. Much of my aim is to question and break down the boundaries between ‘sane’ and ‘insane’, ‘analyst’ and ‘analysand’, which I feel are in many ways highly artificial and thus counter-productive to the real aim of authentic living and healing honesty, in many ways putting the ‘patient’ at an unfair disadvantage as the mere receiver of favors he often didn’t even ask for. How patronizing is it to say the ‘patient’ has nothing to teach, & is not providing a ‘service’ of his or her own? As the wise Seth Farber rightly says, there is a fundamental ‘equality’ to human consciousness that is belied by the highly hierarchical & stuffy ‘professional’ nature of psychiatry.

In a society which is severely curtailing emotional and verbal expression, there is also a moral imperative to maintain as wide expression as is still possible, to keep pushing at the boundaries before they become narrower and narrower and collapse in on themselves entirely into a rigid little box. I therefore insist upon the right to be responsibly irresponsible, or irresponsibly responsible. I also feel that an allergy to genuine and deep emotion is part of our general cultural malaise – a too great a wish to live at ‘the surfaces’ – as it has always been, and that a good reformer and rhetorician uses affects to his full advantage so as to make people really FEEL their existential state and the plight of others, in a way that may well appear ‘mad’, and be frightening to others used to a more ‘sanitized’ and mollycoddled, ‘mature’ yet also really infantilized regime. Of course, anyone who attempts to change a society’s values and modes is always liable to be attacked as ‘crazy’ and all other manner of slander, as he or she challenges the established interests of the status quo. By openly embracing the ‘mad’ aesthetic, I also hope to forestall any further accusations of unintentional, real mental illness (which I would argue must always be unintentional & crushing, diminishing rather than enhancing & enriching of a person’s sense of Self & the expression of their personality in order to qualify as a real ailment – although that important fact is hardly recognized at the moment! ). It is also an open pressing of this question and debate, by its mere existence.
The off kilter, anarchic approach to writing presentation and possibly quite ‘manic- depressive’, at times seemingly hyperbolic or deliberately paradoxical & offensive content and approach also in itself creates what I consider to be an atmosphere more suited to genuine thought, with its bold, even sometimes reckless daring and abandon. This aesthetic and vibe is thus a truly philosophical vibe; an intoxication of wine and berries, loosening the tongue and the constraints of vulgar propriety. It also attempts to re-invigorate with a sense of wonder, fear and trembling, cathartic sorrow, and playful, childish amazement, the perennial companions of a true authentic attitude towards the Universe and scientific quest, which always sees everything anew and as startling, as if from the eyes of a child or idiot, and feels it intensely. The overall attempt (not always successful, granted.. this is only my first prose-oriented book) is to convey a feeling for the great, dizzying PLEASURE of genuine thought itself. This decadent pleasure is in fact one of the most, perhaps even the only truly moral pleasure – as I say, most actions, most attempts to ‘save’ others, or save the world, are highly suspect & corrupt. Part of my aim may perhaps be said to intoxicate with language to prevent and avert the need for a cruder chemical intoxication in myself and others! Because language & insight is both moral & a pleasure to all truly higher mammals. The aim is transformation, not arid intellectual insight.

What makes people valuable is not primarily their ideas – its their vibration. If a person can communicate the right vibration to others, the ideas themselves will come naturally of their own accord.

(There is also a very sad factor I’m still very embarrassed about, whereby I am now in fact possibly incorrigibly and permanently drunk (though I am also quite teetotal!) as a result of the drug-rapery of psychiatric treatment itself, which, as I say, caused me severe, actual and lasting iatrogenic, nervous damage, even though the Dr.s refuse to & cannot admit it due to the nature of their own guild self-interests, as they so often deny their atrocities against others, the horror stories of which line the walls of history, & now the internet.) I do not pretend that my former faculties are by any means still intact, only that they are still well above par due to God’s grace to me early on.

In ancient times, as Nietzsche says in the quote earlier in my blog, madness and genius were not merely mildly associated, but practically only madmen could be innovators in the realm of ideas or customs; and wise men would actively pray for and cultivate an aesthetic of madness to be MORE convincing. It is also however in keeping with the true zeitgeist of our times, which in its unprecedented destruction of tradition and race towards possible oblivion, either literal or technological, ‘post-human’, a long with the omnipotence of ‘the Noble Lie’ and dual, subterranean aspect of reality and political and social discourse, as well as the more overt radical divisions and multiple competing, yet passionately held narratives of what constitutes reality and the correct values, is truly an age of strange miracles, terrifying marvels and often outright popular insanity that give the lie to ‘quiet, everyday normality’ better than anything that has ever happened previously throughout history.

Most of all, in opening myself up to ridicule by voluntarily adopting a ‘mad’ persona, I thereby ‘turn the other cheek’.

So, please don’t be worried about me, (especially as that is the very thing that got me wounded in the first place). If you want to assist me, and really care and aren’t just responding with a reactive fearful desire to contain and suppress what seems strange and unusual to you, just think about my ideas and what I’m trying to communicate here — how it must feel to be labelled ‘mentally ill’ and have your rights taken away, and become an object for others to ‘treat’ against its Will, (especially when he or she is already feeling extremely vulnerable and fragile), for instance — and please try to take them on board a bit more. If you really want to help, buy one of my other books, and help promote and popularize my work and thought further. Then why not write a review on Amazon or Goodreads? Follow me on Twitter (@GaslitByAMadman). And if I am ever subject to unwanted psychiatric or other State-attentions, why not take an interest in my case and try to defend me from further cruel abuse like I have already sustained due to no prior crime of my own. Any of those things would be most appreciated.

It is, however, natural, and actually part of my schtick and mystique for some people to be kept wondering a little on this question, so I do not resent it. It is all a question of each person’s current level.


2 thoughts on “On this blog: “Are You O.K.? Are you mad?”

  1. I’m curious about your wanderings in pursuit of insight.
    As I have never been directly challenged by “professionals” regarding my sanity, I never felt a need to study Nietzsche, Jung, or (god bless him) Freud. As you might be able to tell from my blog, I stepped square into the modern world of post-industrial thought with Dianetics. Although I had been introduced to Bern’s work (Transactional Analysis), I’ve always found Hubbard completely satisfactory.

    Our spiritual nature and the effects of our past existences on our mental health are seldom touched on by “modern” (19th century) psychology, so I stay away from most of that, as you probably do.

    And have you visited CCHR Int’s site? You may lodge a report there if you wish, and access a plethora of researched data and history. It’s a bit lacking on the philosophical side, though, I must admit.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I think I might have actually, my friend, CCHR didn’t seem too zealous in doing much about it at the time, for whatever reason. I know Szasz quite well, & am glad of his work,; & I think that the slander of Hubbard and his followers is philosophically & empirically largely ungrounded. As an outsider,, I noticed a remarkable similarity between their “auditing” approach, & the Socratic Method. So, this is awesome.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s