On being

I uncovered some of my old writings today, including this piece of adolescent philosophizing [not sure what had originally sparked these musings, but I was tickled to find thoughts that I didn't even know I'd recorded resonating with this transitional stage of my life] :

In On the Road, Jack Kerouac writes, "that last thing is what you can't get...nobody can get to that last thing.  We keep on living in hopes of catching it once for all."  To be human is to be--and that is a constant process.  To realize that we are never at a standstill is to accept that we are constantly faced with choices that move us in one direction or another.  As humans, we can all look at the world around us, but we have to choose to see what is really there.  To choose to see is to become aware of something outside of yourself--the all-encompassing humanity to which each and every one of us contributes.  The comfort of remaining self-centered or ego-centric is certainly a plausible option, but it is one that does not fully delve into the meaning found in that greater humanity.

The process of being brings struggle, as it necessarily involves both the darkness and the light.  But to write off some fulfillment of being as unattainable is to willingly disregard that what it means to be human can be based on what is within the reach of our actions--by our choice--rather than what is just outside of it.

To be human is to accept the potential inside yourself--through awareness of that all-encompassing humanity--and to act on it.  It is to be.  It is not just to look but to see.

Celebrity fixation and mental illness

Despite the special status attributed to celebrities in American culture, it seems that they are, in fact, not exempt from the struggles with mental illness that, according to the National Institute of Mental Health, 1 in 4 adults in the U.S. will experience in a given year.  Celebrity fixation, however, has skewed societal thinking to a point where blatantly obvious symptoms of mental illness are perceived as yet another facet of an entertaining personality; it’s representative of the disconnect from reality that these players in the media frenzy help to fuel.  Did you ever wonder, for example, why it is that exhaustion seems to be an ailment exclusively targeting celebrities for bouts of hospitalization?  To have such a diagnosis is a luxury, to say the least—one that the everyday working person feeling tired or exhausted doesn’t get to have.

That same line of thinking that reveres actors and pop stars as somehow different from everyone else may just be what feeds into people’s fascination with the very human struggles that they, at times, display.  Unfortunately, however, viewing said struggles for entertainment purposes certainly doesn’t help any of the players involved. 

Rather than being acknowledged for what they are, symptoms of mental illness are dismissed or minimized—seen as acting/trolling/attention-seeking behavior.  Case-in-point: the recent media buzz surrounding Amanda Bynes and her “reckless behavior.”  Signs that, at least to me, scream "undiagnosed mental illness" seem to be laughed off or followed in amazement, like the proverbial train wreck that you can’t take your eyes off of.  [Despite different presenting symptoms, it’s reminiscent of Charlie Sheen and the media fascination surrounding his downhill spiral seemingly caused by a then-undiagnosed, untreated mental illness; of course, in the eyes of the media, Sheen was “winning.”]

In the meantime, these sorts of media crazes draw ample attention to the shortcomings of the mental health system, as it currently functions (or rather, doesn’t, as the case may be).  Too often, it seems that societal notions of “mental health” are concerned with taking belated action—rather than focusing on prevention or early intervention in the first place.  Often times, the laws in place for involuntary psychiatric hold, for example, end up exemplifying “too little too late” in practice. 
    This critique is certainly not a new one; as mentioned in this article on Involuntary Commitment by Alicia Curtis, there are some, such as a Dr. Paul Chodoff, who “[argue] that the involuntary commitment law should be broadened to allow commitment of those with a mental illness who need hospitalization due to the severe state of their illness, whether they are dangerous or not.”  There’s a whole lot more that can be said on this topic.  For the time being, though, suffice it to say that—shortcomings of the mental health system, as hyper-represented in a culture of celebrity fixation aside—these are real people who have real (and treatable) struggles with mental illness. 
    Ironically enough, for pop culture icons to deal with these struggles in the public eye may actually serve to help normalize the very common and yet still highly stigmatized presence of mental illness in society today…

Consumer guilt

I recently read this blog:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/03/01/173216644/are-you-overwhelmed-you-dont-have-to-be 

and I got to thinkin'...

The fact that consumers feel guilt-ridden and overwhelmed when shopping for food may speak more to their desire to make the “best” choices they can within the framework of a broken food system and yet feeling limited by said broken food system.  For consumers to feel burdened in making healthy choices that are also affordable (amongst so many other pertinent considerations) is unfortunate, considering that there are systems in place that could do a better job of serving their needs, rather than focusing on monetary gain—something that actually happens in other countries. For instance, according to the Organic Consumers Association , different European countries have banned the cultivation of GMO crops, citing a safeguard clause from the EU treaty allowing individual countries to make decisions for the purpose of health and environmental protection.

  At this point, lack of reform to the food system can’t solely be attributed to a lack of consumer awareness—and thus, demand for reform.  The more that awareness is expanding, the more it seems that corporations with vested interest employ their funding to stifle cries for reform.  It was clear, for example, that when California’s Proposition 37 was defeated, it was an issue of corporate-funded mis-information. Proponents of the pro-GMO-labeling bill simply didn’t have the financial resources to rival the likes of Monsanto and its allies.

   

 It’s frustrating to know that desired alternatives are possible, and yet are being actively repressed instead of supported.  Just last month, as Valentine’s Day was approaching, I learned through Food Democracy Now! that the Hershey company, a producer of the chocolate-y staples that fuel this “Hallmark Holiday” contributed $519,000 to defeat the aforementioned Prop. 37; this very company, however, produces the same products--GMO-free—in Europe.

At what point will consumer voices speak louder than corporate dollars?

A dissonance necessarily occurs in the midst of increasing awareness and yet a lack of democratic representation.  That a concerned citizenry unduly bears the burden of these ramifications speaks (perhaps not surprisingly) to the need for reform, including a re-thinking of national priorities. 

If dollars are the method through which consumer voices are heard, then at least one option, for now, is to vote with your dollar until companies have no choice but to adapt.

HSP-INFP

As an HSP (Highly Sensitive Person) who also happens to be an INFP (a personality type from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: introversion, intuition, feeling, perception)  I feel compelled to address some of the misconceptions I’ve encountered—in the contexts of both personal and popular (/culturally appropriated) opinion.  First of all, not all HSPs (aka people affected by Sensory Processing Sensitivity) are introverted; conversely, not all introverted people are HSPs (think a Venn Diagram).  (Not to confuse things any further, but I should also mention that not all people who identify with being introverted are necessarily INFPs…)

Being introverted is not the same as being “shy” or “quiet”; the latter two terms being external labels, more-so than indicators of one’s propensity in terms of generating/restoring energy.  As an introvert, I restore my energy through time spent alone; if I were extroverted  however, I would generate energy through time spent amongst people. I should mention, too, that my inclination to have “alone time” when feeling over-stimulated or over-whelmed could be related to my sensory processing sensitivity in conjunction with my introversion.  For me, the two are inextricable.

The following are some of the ways in which my HSP-INFP characteristics manifest in my everyday life:

• For the most part, I don’t really care to talk on the phone (especially not for extended lengths of time).

• Depending on how noisy it is where I’m reading, I am often able to focus better wearing earplugs.

• I can’t concentrate on reading/writing while listening to music—with the exception being classical music (no words?)

• I need lots of sleep!

• Although I tend to be aurally sensitive, I can relate to the notion Elaine Aron mentioned in The Highly Sensitive Person, of how this sensitivity is not entirely absolute; for instance, there are times when I might choose to play music very loudly (and I might not even realize how loudly until I later turn on my radio again) and it won’t bother me

• I have many allergies/sensitivities—both environmental and dietary, including Oral Allergy Syndrome 

• There are certain textures (and sounds, too, for that matter) that make me feel ill inside: for example, corn starch, chalk residue, suede…and many more!

…

These are only some of the HSP/INFP-related aspects that affect how I process and exist in the world.  In my mind, the knowledge of these different "exceptionalities" is not for the purpose of self-diagnosis or medicalization, but rather in order to normalize the different ways in which people function.  The more awareness/understanding there is, the more people can, ideally, empathize and foster cooperation that is person-centered and individualized, first; it’s humanistic, and—in a way—it’s also practical.

P.S.

In reflecting upon my previous post, especially after hearing a bit on NPR about 3-d gun printing, (http://m.npr.org/news/front/171154845) I thought I might add the following:

Some of the pro-gun outrage is only in response to theoretical limitations. Some people who don't want gun laws to change might not even own guns currently; just the idea of having unfettered liberty augmented (whether or not an augmentation would have practical implications for them) seems to be enough justification to prevent any action being taken that can actually have practical benefit for people, including in the face of re-curring (and potentially preventable) tragedies. How can this be acceptable?

Individualism under collectivism's guise

Interesting how "gun rights" proponents claim that any amendment to gun laws would constitute an infringement upon their--and all Americans'-- constitutional right to bear arms.  Apparently, to even propose any changes to gun laws is tantamount to restricting the freedoms that all Americans are entitled to--a travesty, of course.  But where was this concern for the common good before?

When it comes to other people's children/family members/friends being shot and killed, does that affect all Americans? Or is it just that arguments of collectivism are calculatedly employed in order to maintain one's personal privilege?  And what about refusing to even examine your privilege in the consideration of the common good--is that considered an "entitlement," too? ( I guess, maybe, it depends on who's doing the talking...)

Maybe it's time that, as a society, we ask the ethical questions underlying gun control debates. For one, when talking about matters such as these, can we clarify what would be considered "beneficial"--and to whom?  Are we willing to entertain the idea of compromise or sacrifice in consideration of not just personal benefit, but the common good?