Meditation on Lent - #2
As I contemplate what it might mean to continue the journey of helping or supporting each other in returning ourselves to ourselves, I wonder what this means for those with a mental illness. First, I must explore the concept of mental illness. My understanding of mental illness is it is a physical state of being which prevents one from thinking and acting in a way which is consistent with the health of self and others. Obviously, this is such a broad definition that it extends far beyond those conditions which are included In the DSM -5 ( The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder). The problem, of course, with my broad definition is it can be very subjective. The DSM seems to assume that those who do not fit the narrow definition of mental illness can choose behavior which is healthy for self and others. This assumption seems to beg the question of why one who does not currently qualify as mentally ill chooses a behavior which is unhealthy for self and others. We know behavior which is unhealthy for self is always directly or indirectly unhealthy for others. If all of life is interdependent all behavior affects the entire universe to a lesser or greater extent.
Much of religious theology and certainly Christian Theology posits a concept of free will. In many countries the concept of justice necessarily assumes free will. Thus, in the state of West Virginia in the United States of America, a former supreme court judge stated that he committed an illegal act and deserves to be held accountable. One might then ask, how would a man who been respected enough to be elected to this esteemed role decide to behave in a way which was harmful to himself, his family and the wider community. As far as I know he has not been diagnosed with a DSM V identified mental illness. We must ask:
Certainly option 1 is possible. Many tumors, infections and other conditions which affect the functioning of the brain are never diagnosed. This undiagnosed condition would count as a mental illness under my definition. If he had a condition such as a brain tumor it would be labeled as a physical and not a mental condition even though it is affecting his ability to think and make decisions.
Option 2 would indicate that the connection between his right and left hemispheres has never fully developed or something has happened to stop the transmission of information between the hemispheres. It has been posited by such learned individuals as Ian McGilchrist that that the right hemisphere focuses on the big picture or concept and the f left focuses on the details. The better we are able to envision or conceptualize the big picture the more we are able to effectively attend to details and vice versa. We know that often teenagers whose brain is not fully developed allow immediate gratification to make decisions without any concern for the long-term consequences. Those with an addictive illness, a bipolar depressive illness and many others who may or may not fit the relative narrow definition of mental illness current in vogue are often unable to consider long term consequences.
The operate word here is unable. When someone is unable to exercise free will by considering the details and the larger concept/picture it does not make sense to label them as a bad person or a criminal; to assume that they are their behavior.
As we contemplate what it might mean in this season of Lent to help each other return ourselves to ourselves we might consider this broader definition of mental illness in the context of Jesus telling us to love our enemy, to allow the person who takes our cloak to keep it, give without expectations, and do until others what you would have them do unto you. Instead of judging or punishing others we could assume that all of us deserve unconditional love. Even those who need to be in a protective environment because they are unable to consider how their behavior affects others need to know that they are loved; that we do not blame them for their malfunctioning brain; that we know that our human brain is just as fragile; that we believe that only love helps us return ourselves to each other.
For many of us the implications of the teachings of Jesus might be difficult to accept. Yet, perhaps we are called to accept this challenge.
Written March 8, 2019
Jimmy F Pickett
Coachpickett.org
As I contemplate what it might mean to continue the journey of helping or supporting each other in returning ourselves to ourselves, I wonder what this means for those with a mental illness. First, I must explore the concept of mental illness. My understanding of mental illness is it is a physical state of being which prevents one from thinking and acting in a way which is consistent with the health of self and others. Obviously, this is such a broad definition that it extends far beyond those conditions which are included In the DSM -5 ( The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder). The problem, of course, with my broad definition is it can be very subjective. The DSM seems to assume that those who do not fit the narrow definition of mental illness can choose behavior which is healthy for self and others. This assumption seems to beg the question of why one who does not currently qualify as mentally ill chooses a behavior which is unhealthy for self and others. We know behavior which is unhealthy for self is always directly or indirectly unhealthy for others. If all of life is interdependent all behavior affects the entire universe to a lesser or greater extent.
Much of religious theology and certainly Christian Theology posits a concept of free will. In many countries the concept of justice necessarily assumes free will. Thus, in the state of West Virginia in the United States of America, a former supreme court judge stated that he committed an illegal act and deserves to be held accountable. One might then ask, how would a man who been respected enough to be elected to this esteemed role decide to behave in a way which was harmful to himself, his family and the wider community. As far as I know he has not been diagnosed with a DSM V identified mental illness. We must ask:
- Is it possible that he has an undiagnosed illness which adversely affects his ability to make rational decisions?
- It is possible that he was never exposed to thinking that allowed him to consider that he is not the center of the universe – an interdependent part of the universe?
Certainly option 1 is possible. Many tumors, infections and other conditions which affect the functioning of the brain are never diagnosed. This undiagnosed condition would count as a mental illness under my definition. If he had a condition such as a brain tumor it would be labeled as a physical and not a mental condition even though it is affecting his ability to think and make decisions.
Option 2 would indicate that the connection between his right and left hemispheres has never fully developed or something has happened to stop the transmission of information between the hemispheres. It has been posited by such learned individuals as Ian McGilchrist that that the right hemisphere focuses on the big picture or concept and the f left focuses on the details. The better we are able to envision or conceptualize the big picture the more we are able to effectively attend to details and vice versa. We know that often teenagers whose brain is not fully developed allow immediate gratification to make decisions without any concern for the long-term consequences. Those with an addictive illness, a bipolar depressive illness and many others who may or may not fit the relative narrow definition of mental illness current in vogue are often unable to consider long term consequences.
The operate word here is unable. When someone is unable to exercise free will by considering the details and the larger concept/picture it does not make sense to label them as a bad person or a criminal; to assume that they are their behavior.
As we contemplate what it might mean in this season of Lent to help each other return ourselves to ourselves we might consider this broader definition of mental illness in the context of Jesus telling us to love our enemy, to allow the person who takes our cloak to keep it, give without expectations, and do until others what you would have them do unto you. Instead of judging or punishing others we could assume that all of us deserve unconditional love. Even those who need to be in a protective environment because they are unable to consider how their behavior affects others need to know that they are loved; that we do not blame them for their malfunctioning brain; that we know that our human brain is just as fragile; that we believe that only love helps us return ourselves to each other.
For many of us the implications of the teachings of Jesus might be difficult to accept. Yet, perhaps we are called to accept this challenge.
Written March 8, 2019
Jimmy F Pickett
Coachpickett.org
RSS Feed