Not so much a specific religious use of the word "crazy," as an acknowledgment: Not all of the insane are gods-touched, but all of the gods-touched are insane. Certain spiritual states are incompatible with rationality.
Oz's article, Between Sanity and Madness, explores how some spiritual experiences are treated as signs of mental illness. (The article was contracted for inclusion in a book; it was pulled very late in the publication process.) In a more academic approach, Mental Illness & Spiritual Initiation was written for an abnormal psych class.
'nuff proselytizing, though.
The circular argument is rather breathtaking in its complexity and whirlpool-vortex ability to grab any shred of an "irrational" statement and subject it to the "you are irrelevant" conclusion.
I had not thought of the discourse as "ableist." I think of mental states, emotional states, as matters of spirituality, and consider the dismissal of some states as a gap in spiritual connection. Ableism hadn't crossed my mind because I'm used to people saying, "that thing you think of as a religious matter, it is not, and you are stupid if you think that's important."
And while that's an offensive and bigoted statement, it's not (directly) ableist. I had been initially putting these conversations in my "vaguely religious but nobody except me is gonna notice that" filter. Move *from* that *to* an awareness of modern psychology's concept of "mentally ill" was odd.
In case it hadn't come across--thank you for these posts, for hosting these discussions. Because along with the other good it does, I need the reminders, the perspective from people who don't parse those notions as religious.
no subject
Oz's article, Between Sanity and Madness, explores how some spiritual experiences are treated as signs of mental illness. (The article was contracted for inclusion in a book; it was pulled very late in the publication process.) In a more academic approach, Mental Illness & Spiritual Initiation was written for an abnormal psych class.
'nuff proselytizing, though.
The circular argument is rather breathtaking in its complexity and whirlpool-vortex ability to grab any shred of an "irrational" statement and subject it to the "you are irrelevant" conclusion.
I had not thought of the discourse as "ableist." I think of mental states, emotional states, as matters of spirituality, and consider the dismissal of some states as a gap in spiritual connection. Ableism hadn't crossed my mind because I'm used to people saying, "that thing you think of as a religious matter, it is not, and you are stupid if you think that's important."
And while that's an offensive and bigoted statement, it's not (directly) ableist. I had been initially putting these conversations in my "vaguely religious but nobody except me is gonna notice that" filter. Move *from* that *to* an awareness of modern psychology's concept of "mentally ill" was odd.
In case it hadn't come across--thank you for these posts, for hosting these discussions. Because along with the other good it does, I need the reminders, the perspective from people who don't parse those notions as religious.