Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 beta 4/12/84; site seismo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!keith
From: keith@seismo.UUCP (Keith Bostic)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: Notes on last few submissions
Message-ID: <1617@seismo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Jun-84 21:17:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: seismo.1617
Posted: Mon Jun 25 21:17:56 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Jun-84 03:08:51 EDT
References: <1497@decwrl.UUCP> <3100@cbscc.UUCP> <1608@seismo.UUCP> <801@bbncca.ARPA>
Organization: Center for Seismic Studies, Arlington, VA
Lines: 50

> But, you see, psychology will NEVER be science, and "mental illness" isn't
> quantifiable the way the wavelength of light is.  It is not a "thing", it
> is simply a classification of behavior, here the most broad category that
> one could imagine, one that separates behavior into "good" and "bad".  

First, throw out the word psychology; Webst. 7th, defines psychology as "the
science of mind and behavior."  Let's stick with mental illness.  It's unclear
that mental illness can never be quantified.  Epilepsy has made steady
progress from being a mis-understood, demonically orchestrated bizarreness
to being a medically treatable illness.  It seems reasonable to assume that
medical progress will continue.  

> The APA wasn't operating in a vacuum when it voted to strike homosexuality
> from this classification.  It was forming an opinion based on the emerging
> mainstream view of sexual orientation and what constitutes mental illness.  

I'll agree that the APA was not operating in a vacuum and may very well be the
most qualified organization to make such a determination, I think the evidence
on either side is very poor.  We know very little about how the mind works, let 
alone how it interacts with society.  Whether it's mainstream is certainly
arguable, especially as the country rides this back to the basics wavefront.

> It is valid to ask the question: "If an individual is well-adjusted,
> emotionally mature, behaves properly, is well-integrated into his/her
> environment, and this person happens to be gay, is it USEFUL to describe
> that person as "mentally ill?"  You can see how the APA answered this
> question.  

I'm not sure that's okay.  I'm also not sure it's not.  If you want to reject
all absolutes that's fine.  It's like that line about being judged by a jury
of your "peers".  Where are they gonna find 12 people for Chuckles Manson?
You're saying that my mental health is solely dependent on what society I 
am currently hanging out in.  And, I have to figure that someone who is gay now
passed through a *serious* period of mental illness a few years back.  I don't
like soft answers.  The only real advantage I can see to that argument is that
the stop-capital-punishment people really lose... no one is ever insane, just
not in step with society.

		Countin' flowers on the wall, that don't bother me at all,
		Keith 
			ARPA: keith@seismo 
			UUCP: seismo!keith

p.s.	Just out of curiosity, though, who *is* going to define "emotionally
	mature" etc. etc.?

p.p.s.	This whole issue reminds me of some of the UNIX tools around.
	You know, a great idea (i.e. mental illness and treatment) that got
	special-cased to death.  Damn, but if every day ain't a holiday,
	and every meal a banquet!