Mark Morford’s baby

Originally published at the normality factor. You can comment here or there.

I want to have it.

Or, I would, if I hadn’t already exercised the brilliant foresight to get fixed when I had the chance.  That’s just the way these things work out.

Still, it’s not just that he loves blogging about reports like the one that illustrates that antidepressants are chemically ineffective.  Hell, we already knew that.  It’s clear to anyone who has tried to get off of the drugs without serious therapy and work in the interim that oftentimes any depression has actually been made worse.  In some cases of clinical depression, the drugs have only masked the natural decline that the suffering person was already on, removing the impulse for them to develop proper coping skills.  In other more physical cases, it can actually aggravate the symptoms extensively so that getting off of the drugs leaves the suffering person far worse than they would have been, had they been left to their own devices.

No, the real reason that I adore Mark Morford is that he throws rules to the wind and twists them around to his own purposes.  That applies to his use of English – wherein he frequently uses run-on sentences, fragment sentences, and weird contortions of lists to portray his stream of consciousness as a concrete idea – and also to his extrapolated deeper meanings.  He doesn’t toe the line on what is considered “politically correct” (sometimes going far in the opposite direction), but he’s also not an “angry white hedonist” – or, I think, angry about anything beyond the deplorable way humans have managed to bugger things up for the planet while simultaneously buggering up themselves.

I do not always agree with his racy opinions, but they always make me think.  In my opinion, that is the true mark of an excellent writer.  I don’t take those disagreements personally as I would do with, say, an overly zealous hyper-prejudiced neo-con ankle-biter, and it feels good to know that I don’t have to.  Disagreement does not have to equal anger or offensive.  It’s just so liberating to know that!

Of course, the topic of this particular blog is near and dear to my heart.  The studies that are cited do not take into consideration extreme psychiatric issues such as schizophrenia or extreme chemical disorder – and I personally have an answer for those, too – but they do illustrate an impressive audacity that may have the potential to upset the proverbial applecart.

(And you know how much I love that!)

Morford, of course, takes it to a logical and practical place, that we are each responsible for our own illness and that we have the power to enact our own healing, and that religion and modern medicine both have an equal culpability in screwing people up by fooling them into thinking that individuals absolutely must have someone else’s help to get better.  Yes, this is absolutely true, without a doubt.  The question, I’m sure, will come up about why we still need healers and mystics (as they say) to “heal”.

I don’t think I’ve mentioned it in this version of NF, but there’s a whole philosophy for modern healers that I suspect may lay the groundwork for how the cooperation of allopathic and naturopathic medicine will play out in the future.

First, when we talk about holistic healing, we’re talking about the body, mind, and spirit.  We’re talking about how the emotions and mental experiences directly affect the body, and also about how the body and mind interfere with the connection to the spirit.  The spiritual self is beyond reproach, beyond the capacity to give or receive judgment, to be sullied by the use of our free will, or to be “broken” by anyone else – but our connection to it, our ability to feel it and relate to it, can be interfered with by various “psyche glitches”.

When we sit down to discuss a person’s symptoms, they tell us something about the emotional and spiritual-connection condition of the person in addition to the list of physical complaints.  In order to enact true healing on all levels, the person must be willing to address the emotional and spirit-connection issues along with – or even before – the physical complaints.  This is probably why there are so many hyper-Christians among the ranks of the naturopathic community, because the instinctive response is to address the spirit and psyche.  Unfortunately, any religious foundation can directly interfere with the healing because religion often brings judgment – or at least the feeling of judgment – and that is counterproductive to the over-arcing goal of positive MBS (mind-body-spirit) health.

More later.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *