Seeing, hearing, or speaking no evil…

Hans Scholl, his sister Sophie Scholl, and Christoph Probst.

[Updated May 11 in the end]. When I read an exchange on a discussion forum (for wounded people!!!) I suddenly came to think of the three wise monkeys (how wise are they?). In wikipedia it stands about them that:

“The three monkeys are Mizaru, covering his eyes, who sees no evil; Kikazaru, covering his ears, who hears no evil; and Iwazaru, covering his mouth, who speaks no evil./…/

Some simply take the proverb [ordspråk] as a reminder not to be snoopy [snokande], nosy [nyfiken] and gossipy [skvallrig]./…/

Today ‘See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’ is commonly used to describe someone who doesn't want to be involved in a situation, or someone turning a willful blind eye [also see Willful blindness. 'Willful' means 'avsiktlig, uppsåtlig' in Swedish] to the immorality of an act in which they are involved.”

In this (open, not closed) forum the owner (a man) abuse (some) commentators , showing an enormous insensitivity and contempt for struggling people (in my feeling), and nobody reacts except 1-3 persons of 43 members. This makes me really astonished. People continue to post as if nothing has happened.

During my shower now I thought further on this. About bystanders. Herman has written about this for instance (and probably others too, whom I don’t know of).

And I also came to think of an example Miller uses, the Scholl siblings and "the White Rose" during WWII.

And now when I am writing I also come to think of civil courage… And whistle blowers.

Freyd writes about this too! Yes, she writes (see this former posting about "A Society in Denial...", and postings with the label Ross Cheit):

"It is perhaps why to speak no evil when evil is present is, in the end, so evil."

And once again, Miller thinks that

"She can’t make fun of (or scorn) other people’s feelings [people still struggling with their healing for instance, and maybe not so successfully], of whatever sort they are, if she can take her own feelings seriously. She will not let the vicious circle of contempt continue."

A person who has worked her/his history through to a certain degree doesn’t behave like the owner of the forum I am thinking of (and this forum is an open forum, and the owner is a man). Miller is right: if you to a certain degree can take your own feelings seriously you can respect other people more. And truly respect them. Respect what's worth your respect and react against people and phenomena which is worth little or no respect. If you can't do that you haven't really reached that point of self-respect?

And I can't say I respect those not reacting, but who continue to post as if nothing has happened, although not only one but more people have been treated in a similar way. Haven't they seen it at last? No, I can't really admire those silent bystanders, especially NOT those who have been members for a longer time (for some years even)...

I will probably update this posting during the day. Silently: And I won't say I am very courageous... But I got so upset.

What is a constructive reaction/action? What is destructive or self destructive? How do one protect oneself in all this too?

How do one behave/do so one can go to sleep at night with a (a fairly) good conscience?

Addition: Yes, you can breach for other people in a way that harm yourself, which becomes self-destructive and maybe even destructive? What is what?

I found this article “Against Biologic Psychiatry” which I truly recommend. There it stood in the end, relevant for this posting (and for all this with psychological/psychiatric conditions/treatment/help) it feels:

“Now when a person becomes depressed, for example, they are less able to read it or interpret it as a sign that there may be a problem in their life that needs to be looked at or addressed. They are less able to question their life choices, or question for example the institutions that surround them.

They are less able to fashion their own personal or cultural critique which could potentially lead them to more fruitful directions./…/

In short, the very meanings of unhappiness are being redefined as illness. In my view this is a dismaying cultural catastrophe. I do not mean to suggest that psychiatry is solely to blame for this, given how wide a cultural shift this is. However, I do think that psychiatry has not only not resisted its role here, but actually has fulfilled it with considerable hubris [psykiatrin har inte bara motstått sin roll här, utan faktiskt också fullföljt den med avsevärd övermod/storhetsvansinne]....

I am increasingly astonished about how unable the average patient is now to articulate reasons for their unhappiness, and how readily they will accept a medical diagnosis and solution if given one by a narrow-minded psychiatrist. This is a cultural pathologic dependence on medical authority. Granted, there are patients who do fight this kind of definition and continue to search for better explanations for themselves which are less infantilizing, but in my experience this is not common.

There is a frightening choking off of the possibility for dissent and creative questioning here, a silencing of very basic questions such as what is this pain? or what is my purpose? Modern psychiatry has unconscionably participated in this pathology for its own gain and power./…/

Having said this, what I am advocating is a psychiatry which devotes itself humbly to the task of listening to patients in a way that other medical practitioners cannot. This means paying close attention to a patient's current and past narrative without attempting to control, manipulate or define it. From this position a psychiatrist can then assist the patient in raising relevant questions about their lives and pain ... Diagnosis should play a secondary and small role here, given that little is known about what these diagnoses actually mean..../…/

A more humane psychiatry, if it is even possible in today's cultural climate, must recognize the powerful potential of the uses and abuses of power if it is not to become a tool of social control and normalization. As I have outlined in this piece, these abuses of power are by no means always obvious and self-evident, and their recognition requires rigorous thought and self-examination./…/

This requires real moral awareness on the part of a psychiatrist who wishes to act intelligently.”

This psychiatrist acknowledges that a depressed person is less able in handling his/her life… And I think one shall not moralize over this - at all. That is contra productive. So starting to lecture him/her is… Bad! Wrong! Mildly said.

Addition May 11: read ”See No Evil -- A political psychologist explains the roles denial, emotion and childhood punishment play in politics”, Michael Milburn interviewed by Brian Braiker in Newsweek, May 13, 2004.