Too often I have heard and read statements about people who just "woke up one day and decided to feel better" and their depression was gone. I hate to break it to you, but that's not how it works.
I can point to specific dates and times which were determining in my recovery (like October 11th 2007 when I FINALLY called the local Mental Health Authority and began the process).
But I also remember tonnes of times when I'd tell myself "Ok, this is it I'm just going to feel better", it didn't work and I felt WORSE.
Recovery is a process, an on-going process at that. I'm not cured, I have achieved a good level of stability which I want to keep, and involves several things including medication, regular exercise, proper diet.
If you're looking to get better, slowly getting there, or even unsure, remember that it's ongoing.
I have days were I remind myself of where I was, how I felt, how I never want that ever again, and that I've gotten what I have through consistent self-discipline, and constant work. Not some magical idea that I'll "will it away".
Monday, August 10, 2009
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Do what you truly enjoy
I have often felt guilty of wanting to do (work wise) what I like. As if I was asking for some sort of privilege. Until recently, I have thought of a person's profession as nothing more than an obligation. Work - lodge, feed, clothe yourself - pay you bills. After that (whatever time is left), do what you enjoy.
As if wanting a metier which involves one's likes is being finicky.
I also believed that those who (allegedly) enjoy what they do are exceptions such as athletes and entertainers. That only prodigies can achieve this because of their exceptional talent(s).
That "average Joe Schmo" can only hope for potential fun/happiness during "off hours".
No wonder people are depressed. If all we have to look forward to is a potential 45 minutes of our favorite activity tomorrow (assuming all goes well at work, and bills are all paid up).
Fortunately, more people are seeing the correlation between working in a job one enjoys and improved mental health!!
Don't let false "obligations" (IE. Socio-economic status) get in the way of following your passions.
Better to live a more humble lifestyle and be healthy than rich and miserable.
As if wanting a metier which involves one's likes is being finicky.
I also believed that those who (allegedly) enjoy what they do are exceptions such as athletes and entertainers. That only prodigies can achieve this because of their exceptional talent(s).
That "average Joe Schmo" can only hope for potential fun/happiness during "off hours".
No wonder people are depressed. If all we have to look forward to is a potential 45 minutes of our favorite activity tomorrow (assuming all goes well at work, and bills are all paid up).
Fortunately, more people are seeing the correlation between working in a job one enjoys and improved mental health!!
Don't let false "obligations" (IE. Socio-economic status) get in the way of following your passions.
Better to live a more humble lifestyle and be healthy than rich and miserable.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
What is normal?
I have just completed a class entitled "Abnormal Psychology" in which we studied psychological ailments / diseases.
I understand the word "abnormal" in this context, but still feel it contributes to the marginalization of mentally ill people, and the stigma attached to mental illness.
So what exactly is normal? Dictionary.com defines "Normal" as:
The first definition is rather common, the second applies to psychological disorders, but I am intrigued by the 3rd one "Free from any infection or other form of disease". Linguistically I agree that someone who is dis-eased is not "normal", but would we ever dare call someone with diabetes or cancer "abnormal"?
Coming back to the first definition, "conforming to a standard type....natural, regular", there's an aspect of conformity, that somehow originality would not be normal.
I believe the common understanding of what a normal person is simply "Someone who's not a burden". After all it's not "normal" to not fend for oneself (work and pay one's bills), to not be able to overcome difficulties (we congratulate people 's successes, we don't get involved when they suffer).
The normal person is the one who works, pays their taxes, doesn't break the law, and isn't a nuisance to others.
By that (common) definition, maybe we can see why those who's mental disease incapacitates their functioning at work, interferes with their economic capacity, and makes them NEED THE HELP of others actually don't seek help.....it's not normal.
I understand the word "abnormal" in this context, but still feel it contributes to the marginalization of mentally ill people, and the stigma attached to mental illness.
So what exactly is normal? Dictionary.com defines "Normal" as:
| 1. | conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural. |
| 2. | serving to establish a standard. |
| 3. | Psychology.
|
| 4. | Biology, Medicine/Medical.
|
The first definition is rather common, the second applies to psychological disorders, but I am intrigued by the 3rd one "Free from any infection or other form of disease". Linguistically I agree that someone who is dis-eased is not "normal", but would we ever dare call someone with diabetes or cancer "abnormal"?
Coming back to the first definition, "conforming to a standard type....natural, regular", there's an aspect of conformity, that somehow originality would not be normal.
I believe the common understanding of what a normal person is simply "Someone who's not a burden". After all it's not "normal" to not fend for oneself (work and pay one's bills), to not be able to overcome difficulties (we congratulate people 's successes, we don't get involved when they suffer).
The normal person is the one who works, pays their taxes, doesn't break the law, and isn't a nuisance to others.
By that (common) definition, maybe we can see why those who's mental disease incapacitates their functioning at work, interferes with their economic capacity, and makes them NEED THE HELP of others actually don't seek help.....it's not normal.
Monday, August 3, 2009
It's a matter of trust
It is said that people suffering Depression, addiction and other mental illnesses often have difficulty trusting others while getting better.
There's a very valid reason for this; the very people requiring trust are the very people the person suffering could not trust when they were ill.
To the depressive who is getting better, the people asking (directly or not) to be trusted including family, friends, colleagues, even medical professionals are the same people who "let them down" when they (the depressive) were going through their worse times, those people (often) were not there. Either they literally were not present, they "didn't know what to do", repeated platitudes such as "snap out of it", or (as to often is the case) pretended like everything was ok.
This is a large reason why depressives are (justifiably) angry.
The Catch-22 here is that as untrustworthy as people are when dealing with others' mental illness, the best way to health is by letting people (back) into our lives.
The doctor who prescribes medication "X" can be trusted to the extent that he knows what he's doing. The family member, friend or colleague who invites you out, or accepts your invitation can be trusted for that event (and other similar things), but it does not mean they suddenly "know what to do", or that their previous behaviour was appropriate.
How much we trust people is always tricky, but more so after having gone through depression and feeling like we were left on our own.
Accepting others ignorance has actually helped me in that I see it as an opportunity for me to advocate for people with depression, and educate those without.
There's a very valid reason for this; the very people requiring trust are the very people the person suffering could not trust when they were ill.
To the depressive who is getting better, the people asking (directly or not) to be trusted including family, friends, colleagues, even medical professionals are the same people who "let them down" when they (the depressive) were going through their worse times, those people (often) were not there. Either they literally were not present, they "didn't know what to do", repeated platitudes such as "snap out of it", or (as to often is the case) pretended like everything was ok.
This is a large reason why depressives are (justifiably) angry.
The Catch-22 here is that as untrustworthy as people are when dealing with others' mental illness, the best way to health is by letting people (back) into our lives.
The doctor who prescribes medication "X" can be trusted to the extent that he knows what he's doing. The family member, friend or colleague who invites you out, or accepts your invitation can be trusted for that event (and other similar things), but it does not mean they suddenly "know what to do", or that their previous behaviour was appropriate.
How much we trust people is always tricky, but more so after having gone through depression and feeling like we were left on our own.
Accepting others ignorance has actually helped me in that I see it as an opportunity for me to advocate for people with depression, and educate those without.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Love / Hate / Indifference
It is said that the opposite of love is not hate, but rather indifference. If you hate someone, you are still acknowledging them, whereas by being indifferent, it's as if they don't even exist.
Now imagine suffering from mental illness and having people indifferent to it. They "don't know what to do", they "don't want to interfere", basically they are just full of excuses to not do anything.
A large part of mental illness is feelings of loneliness, of being "misunderstood", of not "fitting in", and when others are indifferent to it, it amplifies those symptoms.
Now imagine suffering from mental illness and having people indifferent to it. They "don't know what to do", they "don't want to interfere", basically they are just full of excuses to not do anything.
A large part of mental illness is feelings of loneliness, of being "misunderstood", of not "fitting in", and when others are indifferent to it, it amplifies those symptoms.
Ideas I've been writing
Just because "that's the way it goes" doesn't make it right. I rather question, be skeptical, be accused of being "a dreamer" or "idealistic", even it it means being criticized, even ridiculed. I even prefer question something and be proven wrong than to not have questioned and simply accepted.
Ever notice it's never "one of us". whenever we hear of some mass murder, it was "a nut job". When someone ("only") takes their own life (IE. Kurt Cobain), they were "troubled". How come we recognize their "trouble" only AFTER they're dead? Also, what is so scary about looking at their similarities? Isn't how they "express" those similarities the only difference?
We separate ourselves from social outcasts (IE. homeless, mentally ill...), while attaching convenient tags to ourselves. When someone with the same tag as us commits a condemnable act, a truly humble person feels sympathy for the victim(s), and (some) shame that "someone like them" would do such a thing. The insecure, self-indulgent, and arrogant person simply separates themselves ("Oh, he's one of those"). Guess where the vast majority fit in.
Michael Phelps was photographed smoking dope and admitted to it. He has been "forgiven" in the court of public opinion. Would it be so if instead of being an Olympic champion, and a strong "revenue generator" for several sponsors, he were some "ordinary schmuck", or a homeless person?
I feel sympathy for Phelps as everything he does is scrutinized with a magnifying glass which isn't fair (even for someone of his celebrity). Those I have no sympathy for are those sponsors who were so glad the "sponsor" him when everything was going well, but as soon as things go bad they walk away. They never wanted him to "succeed", all they wanted is for him to make money for them.
Funny how these "sponsors" would be the first ones to whine for help if things don't work out for them (even if they create their own demise through their selfish greed), but when things don't go as planned for the guy they "sponsor", they just walk away.
Ever notice it's never "one of us". whenever we hear of some mass murder, it was "a nut job". When someone ("only") takes their own life (IE. Kurt Cobain), they were "troubled". How come we recognize their "trouble" only AFTER they're dead? Also, what is so scary about looking at their similarities? Isn't how they "express" those similarities the only difference?
We separate ourselves from social outcasts (IE. homeless, mentally ill...), while attaching convenient tags to ourselves. When someone with the same tag as us commits a condemnable act, a truly humble person feels sympathy for the victim(s), and (some) shame that "someone like them" would do such a thing. The insecure, self-indulgent, and arrogant person simply separates themselves ("Oh, he's one of those"). Guess where the vast majority fit in.
Michael Phelps was photographed smoking dope and admitted to it. He has been "forgiven" in the court of public opinion. Would it be so if instead of being an Olympic champion, and a strong "revenue generator" for several sponsors, he were some "ordinary schmuck", or a homeless person?
I feel sympathy for Phelps as everything he does is scrutinized with a magnifying glass which isn't fair (even for someone of his celebrity). Those I have no sympathy for are those sponsors who were so glad the "sponsor" him when everything was going well, but as soon as things go bad they walk away. They never wanted him to "succeed", all they wanted is for him to make money for them.
Funny how these "sponsors" would be the first ones to whine for help if things don't work out for them (even if they create their own demise through their selfish greed), but when things don't go as planned for the guy they "sponsor", they just walk away.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
I'm back
Haven't posted in way too long. Life got in the way, I also let it. It's just good to be back.
When does "Live and let live / Not interfere" become ignorance? As I've said before, I believe it's better to have tried "something" and fail than nothing and fail. They say we don't regret what we did as much as what we didn't do. But can people genuinely care and choose to do nothing? If so, is their decision regrettable (assuming a negative outcome), or are they simply sad of the result?
People are imperfect. Individuals, groups, organizations must be judged in their entirety, not simply in those areas which confirm our bias. I often hear that politicians are 'hypocritical' when spinning events to their advantage (or disadvantage of their opponent), but don't most of us do the same? It is called 'partisan politics', what is called when it happens in everyday life?
I am fascinated how beliefs, and values I had 20 years ago were 'right', and how I let their 'unorthodoxy' drive me away from myself. I believed in bettering the world, in helping, in co-operation. I knew it was 'idealistic', but what's wrong with that? I let pedestrian banalities like "That's not how it works" influence me into believing I was wrong!!! How fucked up is that!!! Someone wants to improve the world, make people co-operate, but since it's not "common" they're the troubled one.
I also used to loathe the idea and even the word *work*. To me it sounded like legalized and accepted slavery; put in 40 hours a week, get a paycheque with which you have to pay for lodging, food, and other "obligations" (IE. Bills) which were created by our society and that too few even questioned. And the topper for me was 'If you enjoy what you do, that's a bonus'. How ass-fucking-backwards is that.
I still don't particularly enjoy the obligatory aspect of 'Participating in society', but realize that in order to change things (as minute as that change is likely to be), it's better to do what we want to change in order to put ourselves in a better position to challenge it (IE. 'I've been there, I know what's wrong with it'.)
I missed blogging.
When does "Live and let live / Not interfere" become ignorance? As I've said before, I believe it's better to have tried "something" and fail than nothing and fail. They say we don't regret what we did as much as what we didn't do. But can people genuinely care and choose to do nothing? If so, is their decision regrettable (assuming a negative outcome), or are they simply sad of the result?
People are imperfect. Individuals, groups, organizations must be judged in their entirety, not simply in those areas which confirm our bias. I often hear that politicians are 'hypocritical' when spinning events to their advantage (or disadvantage of their opponent), but don't most of us do the same? It is called 'partisan politics', what is called when it happens in everyday life?
I am fascinated how beliefs, and values I had 20 years ago were 'right', and how I let their 'unorthodoxy' drive me away from myself. I believed in bettering the world, in helping, in co-operation. I knew it was 'idealistic', but what's wrong with that? I let pedestrian banalities like "That's not how it works" influence me into believing I was wrong!!! How fucked up is that!!! Someone wants to improve the world, make people co-operate, but since it's not "common" they're the troubled one.
I also used to loathe the idea and even the word *work*. To me it sounded like legalized and accepted slavery; put in 40 hours a week, get a paycheque with which you have to pay for lodging, food, and other "obligations" (IE. Bills) which were created by our society and that too few even questioned. And the topper for me was 'If you enjoy what you do, that's a bonus'. How ass-fucking-backwards is that.
I still don't particularly enjoy the obligatory aspect of 'Participating in society', but realize that in order to change things (as minute as that change is likely to be), it's better to do what we want to change in order to put ourselves in a better position to challenge it (IE. 'I've been there, I know what's wrong with it'.)
I missed blogging.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
