Good Pain/Bad Pain? Continued

The previous post "Good Pain, Bad Pain" basically talked about how illness is determined largely by our cultural upbringing. There is however, a purely physical part of it. One can build up enough stimulation of a specific type in our bodies that there is a Shutdown of a specific type, either a loss of physical abilities, or mental abilities, but this shutdown is not all bad. For example, many people, after an intense night of intimacy with a partner, will have a shutdown, and this is not bad thing for most. On thether hand, I knew a woman that told me she hated having orgasms, because the feelings were too intense. During intimacy, she tried to eliminate this from the activity. Some do everything for an orgasm, others try and avoid it at all cost. Illness is something that most find to be a bad thing, but one could escape the social surroundings theoretically, and change the world view. One can still be overwhelmed by the internal and or external stimulus of the body, but whether that is good or bad is more governed by how you were raised in society.

On the lighter side of things

Here are a couple of cartoons that really do not spew out too much in the line of politics:

Link One

Link Two

Link Three

Good Pain/Bad Pain?

To clarify the social construction of disabiity, I believe I will need to clear up the posible issue of believing that pain is bad, or good. Pain is pain, nothing more. If pain or illness lasts for more than 12 months, and effects a significant life funtion such as eating, learning, and/or mobility, than it qualifies as a disability onder the ADA. Pain is real; illnesses are real. One can see if snot is running ot of your nose, or if a joint is twice the size it once was. Is this bad? NO!!!

I have been sick and felt bad, but these feelings were socially conditioned. For example, in studies on people riding thrill rides, polling people who hate rides, and people who love rides, the physical responses to the rides are the same: increased heart rate, pit in the stomach, dizzyness...the people who love it emotionally react to the body as positive, and the people who hate it emotionally react negative. So, if I am feeling drained of energy and in pain due to an illness, I cannot help but think that my social conditioning might play a significant role. This is part of fully claiming disability, learning what the triggers are to negitive feeling, and making changes. Microbes cannot keep a person down, and the more we learn, the greater posibilities we have of acting on this probbable truth. Keep in mind I am not saying that disability is our fault, I am saying that we have accepted something from our AMERIKAN upbringing and the way we need to make change is to change AMERKIKA. Individuals should not be passive recipients of social input.

Disability Bad, Impairment Okay?

I was in a conversation the other day with a disabled gentleman who had internalized the AMERKAN nonsense regarding people with various hidden disabiitiesand how they must be suffering with their issues, and in need of a cure. I was happy that I was able to assist him in changing his mind. Any impairment is an issue, only because society sets up roadblocks for people with those specific traits. There are some issues (Only a few) that elicit violence and other dangerous behaviors out of specific individuals, but one has to ask the question, "what triggers those behaviors in the individuals in question?" If we could understand the external triggers better, we could work toward the repair of our suffering society that has chosen to not be inclusive of its population.

Now, I am not saying that we should only work on society, and not help the individual find supports to better integrate themselves into the larger social structure. I am a realist, and I understand that it is nearly impossible to move a society toward a diferent understanding of reality. So, I do believe that it is neccessary to provide supports to disabled individuals till society learns how to be inclusive of everyone. If society is the left hand, and disabled people are the right, both hands should move into the cnter at the same rate and link up. This is the practical goal that will benifit the most people.

Why should both move? Simple. One can be inclusive of everyone, but not at the same time, and this point in history. If you have a gentleman with extreme light sensitivity, and one with glaucoma in the same room, one is going to want bright flourecent light, and the other will be others will be in pain. You can be inclusive of everone, but not in the same room, at the same time. Soiciety can continue to work toward perfection, and should continue, but even if society starts to move toward inclusivity, we may never achieve it fully.

People with impairments, no matter what they are, also have specific strengths. AMERIKAN society just needs to overcome the social construction of disabiity to increase the contributions that all people can make. Our financial capital as a nation depends on it. One out of five people have a disability, and that number is rising.

Changing the Worldview of Disability--step one

Solidarity, agreement, consensus...conceptual meaning must be agreed upon in a group, the larger the better, and one can also draw strength from the group to encourage the increase of size in the group that chooses to examine its relationship to the disabled. A group can consist of a percieved godhead, a spouse or potential spouse, friends, family, cultural artifacts from disabled artists (e.g. poetry books, paintings, music recordings...) advocacy groups...all this needs to occur for lasting change. Both agreement and strength can and should occur from the same group, or at least begin there. People are more likely to convert there way of thinking for a friend than for a stranger. The first step is love. I will post other steps later.

Cool Love Quotes:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40 King James Version)

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. (Mark 12: 29-31 King James Version)

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." (Luke 10: 25-28 King James Version)

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. (1 John 4: 7,8 King James Version)

How do you know if you have a disability?

I was asked a very good question on Saturday, something like, if disability is a social construction, how does one know the values of a particular society to realize a specific disability? Here is the answer: "sometimes you do, and sometimes you don't." Ultimately one has to have enough cultural competence to discern the values of a particular group and/or sub grouping to realize they have a specific disability. If they do not possess an appropriate level of cultural competence to do this, they must discern disability via hard knocks. If a particular individual is hitting a lot of roadblocks in society, the response might be to seek medical attention, psychological and/or biological, receive a diagnosis, learn more about it, and accept the label given by the professional and its corresponding definition. Acceptance of a common idea, and its transference creates a common culture and awareness of a disability. On the other hand, one can have the traits of a particular disability in AMERIKA and not be aware of it.

For example, if you are working for Microsoft Corporation and have the traits of Asperger's Syndrome, there might be several people you know in the company who also have these traits, and several in your family, so you might not know enough about the potential problems you might face in AMERIKAN society to seek a diagnosis. In other words, the traits of Asperger's Syndrome might seem normal enough, until someone in the extended family gets a diagnosis and educates you about it and you make the choice to accept, reject, or deny the possibility that you have enough traits to qualify for that label in your culture.

The degree of acceptance of a disability can and should vary from person to person. Someone could fully accept society's negative issues surrounding a specific label and concentrate only on changing themselves, running with the herd; accept the label and try and change things in society while mitigating the most disabling traits of their impairment, being a free thinker within the herd; or not accepting disability at all, becoming a deviant and not running with the herd. If one is aware enough of their issues within a social group to have pattered difficulties and chooses to ignore the diagnosis or the possibility of a diagnosis, they are likely to encounter problems socially as well as physically. But, if one is in a welcoming employment situation, has a happy home life, and is managing to pay their bills on time, why should one seek out a diagnosis, whatever traits one might have? There are NO biological, neurological, psychological issues that are inherently bad. Society determines these factors for us, and we as individuals have the power to band together and change these factors of society. I encourage people to read the previous posting regarding the definition of disability, and furthermore to seek out information on the social construction of disability. WE MUST CHANGE THE WORLD!!!!

Disability Definition

I was asked to put plain definitions up for consideration, so here it goes:

Disability: a set of physical, behavioral, or both physical and behavioral characteristics that are medically defined and specifically devalued by a particular cultural group, with corresponding negative action on a macro level, intentional or unintentional, against those who demonstrate the characteristics so devalued. (e.g. constructing stairs on buildings when stairs are not neccessary for that location or for aesthetic reasons, but simply because you always put stairs on buildings. "Unintentional negative action against those who are mobility impaired")

Impairment: the biological and/or psychological factors present in an individual that leads them to encounter hurdles in day to day living within a particular cultural group.

Keep in mind that this is copyright material, so please write for permission and wait for a response before you make use of these. Also, keep in mind that both have social and biological qualities, Disability being more social in origin, but with both if the social was not there, then the physical would not matter. There are no physical absolutes as to what is "normal" or not. When claiming disability, one is taking back a concept from those who are oppresing them, nothing more.

Ballet: Accessible or not?

People with certain impairments, like autism, are pre-disposed to liking repetitive motions, can be very focused and committed to something far beyond that of mortal man, and enjoy well-defined rule structures. These are qualities that are praised by many ballet teachers. If one has a mental issue, or a neurological issue, the world of dance might provide solace from a society that does not accept difference, possibly prompting even more commitment to the development of the art. Those that do not have a DSM issue might even have to learn a few traits in order to be successful, to compete with the natural intensities of those who have the traits of numerous DSM labels.

Some writers and speakers have acknowledged ballet dancers who have eating disorders; drug addictions, current and former; various mental issues, various Autistic labels; Deaf and Hard of Hearing dancers...but there is little to no mention of the overarching issue--DISABILITY. What mention disability receives comes largely out of stress that encourages drug use and eating disorders, a negative reference, but their are positive issues that go unheard. There are also other negative issues that have not recieved mention, the expected concealment of a specific disability.

One can be up front about certain issues in most ballet companies, but if it is too visible, than the superhuman fantasy is broken. What does that mean to be in a place where one can be themselves if they have certain disabilities, but also be a place where one cannot ever be themselves and fully claim the vary label that affects the broadest strokes of living? Furthermore, by concealing disability, there is not an overt role model in dance for other disabled people to latch on to and say, "maybe dance is for me." This is something that needs to be explored, the good of accessibility within the world of ballet, and the drawbacks of concealment. Academics, start your engines.

Autstigation?

Being that I am an Autistic who is progressing toward holy marimony, I have thought of what might happen with the concept of disability in our union. (disability being a social construction only) I believe as a Christian that in mariage, the two become one. So when my fiance and I marry, does she become disabled? It is easier for this to happen if she understands the sacrimental nature of marriage, which she does, but I am not sure whether or not she would take on the opression of society when we say "I do." I believe she loves me, desires to be a team player in our life's journey, and there is a term, Aspergation, that floats about a lot of online communities, when applied to a person, means that a non-Aspie takes on the traits of being Aspie during the course of a close relationship. Many people in the Autistic universe have noticed that non-Aspies sometimes convert to our brand of spirituality. This is not a willful thing, but one of reflecting qualities of the other in a close relationship. Love is a powerful and at times, quite transformative.

I have a word, Autstigation, which is similar but refers to the whole Autistic universe. In the presidential speach delivered before the American Psychological Associaion in 1949, there was a word that Gardner Murphy came up with, Socially Shared Autism, which described people in liturgical faith prectices (e.g. Catholic, Jew, etc.), and in academic professions and others all-consuming, that entered into Autistic states in groups during ritual activities, but were able to exit said group and the state they were in at will. Maybe, as some non-Autistic spouses enter into marriage, they becomes Autistic to a degree, but are only able to leave that state in divorce? Is this a stronger state of Socially Shared Autism? Now, I am not saying that I think my fiance is compleatly undiagnoseable in the Autism universe. From the beginning of our relationship she demonstrated traits that indicated a possible Aspie label, but during the course of being together, she has blossomed into a bolder, blunter woman who seems more Aspie with each passing day. Part of it is that I know her better, but another part I believe is that we are becomming one. Another option is that I know her better and love her more now than I did when I first knew met her, and all of us have a blunt streak...maybe...I am only starting to think about this topic, so I am not compleatly clear how this applies to our life, nor am I clear how this could apply to other disabilities, hidden or physical. Maybe it is just an Autistic phenomena. Who knows? I will post more on this topic at a latter date.