Asperger's Syndrome - Your story

Burn - Leddrain (Philip Seibel)

Brian, have you ever read any writings by the German mathematician Georg

Cantor. He developed the theory of infinite sets and also did some

philosophical and theological writing. Cantor also suffered from mental

illness. I often wonder if he could have created his theory of infinite

sets if he had been "sane"! And that brings up a good question; What is

normal and what is abnormal. Some of my best friends suffered/suffer from

so called mental illness. They never seemed that strange to me. Society

can be so judgmental. Michel Foucault, the eminent French writer and

philosopher, contends in his book MADNESS AND CIVILIZATION that French

authorities in the 1600's shut away mentally ill people not for therapy

but to police society. Moreover, Thomas Szaz, professor of psychiatry at

Syracuse University, New York, USA has written books entitled THE MYTH OF

MENTAL ILLNESS(1961) and THE MANUFACTURE OF MADNESS (1970). Szasz has

written , " There is no such thing as mental illness!"

What do you think.

 Mead

Hi Mead! I think that mental 'illness' can cover such a wide range of definition that it can not easily be defined. Perhaps the best example of this occurred in my

journal, when a fellow busker (Everts) came up to me in a bar and said,

"It seems like everyone is acting strange in here tonight."

I replied, "That makes you strange."

That made him laugh, and resulted in his writing of a song where the chorus ran, "The strangest man on Earth tonight? Is it you?"

The term "Busker" can cover such a wide range of motivations and diversity. In the end, it results in the negation of the term as a means to isolate generalisation. It is

possible to say that a busker seeks reward from impromptu and random audiences, but no other generalisation will fit. Every busker has an individual motivation.

I think mental illness is a term similar to "Busker". It is possible to say that a mentally ill person is someone who doesn't behave or think in a way the mainsream of a

society may class as understandable, but no generalisation will fit. Every person defined as mentally ill needs to be studied individually. It is possible to put names

onto behavioual patterns and a patient might ape these patterns quite well. But that doesn't get any closer to generalising the term "mental illness". It simply isolates

buskers (analogy) who play the guitar and like to play Bruce Springsteen songs (example).

The kind of "mental illness" my journal gleefully embraced was the "derangment of the senses" unveiled by Rimbaud.

What is normal?

A. Something I am not.

What is abnormal?

A. Something I am

Now I shall ask you a question:

If John (imagined person) dies, would he be impressed if his epitaph on his tombstone read:

"Here lies John. He was normal." ?

Suppose he were a politician. Suppose a fellow politician should stand before his mourners and say

"I think the greatest tribute I can give John is that he was extraodinarily normal; and all his works were very normal indeed." ?

As recently as the middle of last century it was possible for parents to commit their teenage daughter to a mental institute for pre-marital sex or even for loving a

person considered unsuitable. These victims were sane, but years of incarceration in the institute led to them becoming institutionalised and effectively mentally ill.

I'd care to bet that you (as a psychologist) look at each individual case on its own merit, using guidelines established over the years by the summary of other similar

cases experienced by yourself or other psychologists. There would be no point in there being psychologists if there was no hope of curing a condition, or modifying

it.

It seems that thoughts that are advanced or retarded cause the greatest confusions. If you were to show this e mail to a seven year old and ask them (as a friend, not

as an authoratorive adult) what they think about the issue, I'd care to bet they wouldn't understand a word of it. Because of this, they may well look at this mail and

then at you and say, "You're mad."

Bringing in one final analogy: anti biotics will kill harmful bacteria, but they may equally kill good bacteria.

Cheers Brian

Asperger's

Half in this world - half within the comfort and security of a private unshared world.

The result: a powerfully unique individual.

www.asindividual.com

Hi Mead

I tend to regard Asperger's as a way of thinking that is often non-conformist to the mainstream way of thinking. Once they discover their niche (their sphere of interest), they will be self driven within it until the mainstream will (often uncomfortably) embrace them. A lot would depend on what that sphere of interest actually is, of course.

Incidentally, there was a lively debate on a forum thread last month in which our Asperger discussion showed up. Fairly amusing, but there seems to be a confusion and misconception generally about Asperger's (right up to calling it a disease). I regard it simply as a way of thinking unique amongst each individual. This means they are capable of approaching their chosen field from a unique angle, contributing a unique view. Their problem seems to be an inability to notice there is a wide open gate to the field that is used by the general public who also find the field interesting. Passing through a gap in the hedge the asperger may see things the general public automatically miss as they stick to the paths. Their individual journey and discoveries may excite or bore the public in the field, but the asperger has excited him or herself and that is the most important thing to them on inner levels.

Brian

You are viewing the text version of this site.

To view the full version please install the Adobe Flash Player and ensure your web browser has JavaScript enabled.

Need help? check the requirements page.

Get Flash Player