Reply to comment

Seems to me there's a story beginning to emerge from the stories, in my mind/brain at least. Let me see if I can sketch it ....

1. The mental heath system is a fragmented mess.
2. Its very hard to define "mental health" in a way that is satisfying to all.
3. Empirical science does not/cannot yield "Truth".
4. We all live in different worlds.
5. We all have different, potentially different worlds within ourselves (at a minimum, those of the cognitive unconscious/tacit knowing and of the I-function/story teller).

The big question is whether all of that is "demoralizing" or whether instead items 3-5 might give us a way to think about "mental health" (and perhaps health in general) that would draw from/make sense of our differences and, by so doing, suggest ways to make mental health care more coherent, "less wrong" both individually and institutionally. I"m betting on the latter, on the possibility that problems 1 and 2 result, at least in part, from discomforts associated with 3-5, and that if we fully embraced 3-5 new ways to approach 1 and 2 would result.

Is that a good bet? We'll see. In the meanwhile, we've explored some tactical terrain that may prove relevant. The line behind "hard science" and "soft science" may be useful in some contexts, but less so in, for example the context of mental health. More generally, drawing lines that require one to pick between one alternative and another may get in the way in this realm. A different approach is to find stories that accomodate what might otherwise seem to be mutually exclusive perspectives ("physical" and "mental," "objective" and "subjective," "body" and "mind,") and, in so doing, create both new possibilities and new questions.

Along those lines, we've been (as above) using the concept "useful" a lot, in lieu of "true" or "real." What exactly do we mean by "useful," and how can one judge "usefulness"? Can two quite different things be equally useful? And, if so, what we do about that? And what about the possibility that the inability of empirical science to say what is "True" or "Real" should actually encourage us to look in other places for such thing, rather than to regard them as in unachievable?

More immediately, we've got thoughts and the mind in the brain (or at least know what observations those stories summarize), but that's only a start. Why are there two boxes and how do they relate to one another? Can we get by with a bipartite brain or do we need at least one additional element (a "truine brain," an ego/id/superego, an uconscious/preconscious/conscious)? How shall we think about discovering things about oneself, about interpersonal relations, about cultural and its influences? In what ways might this sort of story be "useful," ie suggest new ways to think about therapeutic approaches to mental health problems, about the definition of mental health, about the institutional structures aimed at promoting mental health?

Like I said, a story seems to be emerging in my mind/brain, but its far from complete so I think we should keep meeting for a while. Looking forward to hearing what sorts of stories others are making of our conversations.