Epistemology of Insanity

What is insanity and is it even a homogeneous phenomenon at all? Insanity is one of those general terms that lump together diverse and heterogeneous phenomena into one short representation of carno-phallogocentrism.

security-3014154_1280

The question of carno-phallogocentrism is indeed central to the matter of insanity since psychiatry is a certain form of pseudo-psychiatric physiognomy as intrinsically discursively based on carno-phallogocentric hermeneutic privileges of ethnocratic patriarchy.

First, the notion of “insanity” have neither been scientifically proven nor even scientifically questioned in the field. What is known as “insanity” refers essentially to what could be described as a certain state of confusion and lack of understanding on the part of not the confused person herself but also on the part of others.

Psychiatry simply defines “insanity” as social deviation from culture which of course is not a scientific definition at all, but rather an expression of ethnocratic patriarchy itself. This definition is outrageous and not only for its scientifically fully unfounded nature but also for its discursive exercise of power on the basis of pseudo-scientific physiognomy. Is for example a member of an indigenous culture in Papua New Guinea “insane” for refusing to abide by cultural customs (e.g public nudity) whose exercise according to the above definition would be labeled by Eurocentric psychiatry as “insane” if practiced by indigenous Europeans?

There is in fact no scientific basis to the concept of “insanity” as the Eurocultural definition of “insanity” is simply culturally perceived social deviation from carno-phallogocentrism which is the very name of Eurocentric imperialist epistemological privilege itself.

If so called “insanity” is simply a panoply of diverse states of confusion, then what is “confusion”? Confusion is simply lack of understanding in the breakdown of communication for a certain temporal period as ranging from a fraction of a second to lifelong confusion. Since the performative conception of “insanity” is fully unscientific other than as anthropologically referring to certain ethnocratic exercise of power by patriarchy need we now elaborate the epistemology of confusion.

Confusion is in fact the very breakdown of epistemology and so psychiatry seeks impose Para-Christian apophatic epistemology in the place of this khôra of epistemology although epistemology is properly speaking khôra itself.

Since confusion is not an epistemology but rather absence of epistemology need we now consider the epistemology of the non-itself of khôra. Culture is the polis in the anthropology of the khôra and aggressive ethnocratic ideologies such as phonocentrism and carno-phallogocentrism serve to hermeneutically marginalize khôra in power-centric distortions of epistemology whose real and genuine location is khôra itself.

We need hence commence recognition of non-understanding, not only in understanding particular discursive conceptions but also literally in simply recognizing our own non-understanding. Psychiatry is premised on the peculiar, indeed outrageous and not merely contradictory notion that the deliberate non-understanding of apophatic epistemology is legitimate knowledge.

Psychiatry itself is thus a system of structural discursive confusion, including formalized discursive confusion on the part of anatomical doctors in pseudo-scientific physiognomy without any required degrees in psychology whatsoever.

A “patient” subjected to anatomical doctors of pseudo-scientific physiognomy may experience confusion of varying kinds, including the experience of severe self-doubt due to physionomistic stigmatization. The anatomical doctor of pseudo-scientific physiognomy will typically tell the subjected person that s/he is “insane” and any impatience and/or disagreement on the part of the “patient” is discursively conceptualized as denial, lack of self-awareness, cognitive detachment etc. The anatomical doctor of pseudo-scientific physiognomy does not even for a moment pause to consider that he himself may have those very properties in simply projecting his discursively formalized state of confusion – in confusion simply constituting emotionalized non-understanding.

What is lacking is hence simply the recognition of non-understanding as such and hence we need diverse scientific projects of critical discourse in understanding that which is deliberately non-understood by the unreason of hegemonic apophatic epistemology.

What then is apophatic epistemology? Apophatic epistemology is a Para-Christian (i.e. Eurocentric) indirect derivative of Christian apophatic theology. Apophatic theology claims to know the nature of what is known as “god” yet doctrinally refuses to understand the nature of so called “god” other than in negative formulations such as “god is not x” and “god is not y”. Apophasis is thus the very irrational epistemological practice of claiming understanding while refusing understanding on principle. Apophasis is hence not merely illogical but could be described as the very definition of unreason, indeed definition of confusion and even as insanity itself.

Insanity as a performative discursive practice is thus the performative social practice of paradigmatic non-understanding whereby non-understanding is produced, projected, introjected, legitimized and exchanged. What is misnamed as “insanity” is hence the social practice of production of non-understanding on the part of all involved whether anatomical doctors of pseudo-scientific physiognomy or the subjected and subsequently enslaved persons.

Now when we have elaborated the unfounded nature of the epistemology of insanity need we also articulate answers and those are indeed science, more science and strict science indeed. Apophatic epistemology needs become fully expunged from and indeed discursively discredited in all fields of academia as the abhorrent exemplar of pure unreason that it truly and genuinely is.