The fine line between needing to be social and needing solitude.

Yes, because I am not a particularly emotional person, I tend to see things in a more logical way, guided by intellectual reasoning, not emotion. I am sure many other people with AS would agree. Although coming to different opinions and view-points, as shown on this forum, our opinions are often formed by logical deduction, and less so by emotion.

Patriotism, for example, is something I just don't understand. I am fond of my country, but my affection is similar to that displayed by an animal: routine, habit and familiarity. I am not 'proud' to be British - a concept I cannot understand, too abstract and emotional. I am not a team-player, so find it hard to support a particular team, although I find it easier to support individuals. 'Britishness' is an abstract, emotional concept which does not make logical sense.

Hitler and the *** did disgusting things. But they were not 'evil' - an emotional, metaphysical concept. They were human-beings operating in a particular context. Nazism could have taken off in the UK if the context were different. Germany lost the war, was crippled and punished by the war guilt clause, suffered a massive financial collapse,  and was not used to democracy. All these factors plus  a history of Eugenicist thinking (Britain, by the way, also had a history of Eugenics, as did the USA - sterilisation was introduced for the mentally ill in the 1920s), contributed to Nazism.

'does anyone else have problems' id say so, going by the amount of pages on this one 

i know my partner does, hes also pretty misanthropic, and it rubbed off on me too so now all the things you and he and all those other replies you got see, i see in nts and im one of them 

its amazing you went to autcshwitz, i get why people would be perplexed at that it wouldbe a very emotional thing to experience, for an nt

im sure it was 'emotional' for you in your way as well, but you probably see it more factually, like you said you know how it happens, and you wont jump on the demonising bandwagon

i respect that 

 And to feel angry about people who don't work simply suggests a certain low self-esteem. If you are happy in your own life, who cares how Jo Bloggs decides to spend his time. Enough people DO want to work that this is really not a problem. Even in our society, most people prefer to be in work. Unemployment is horrible, and I should know - for I have experienced it.

And I do think it is pessimistic and cynical to assume that humans must be forced to work.

The reason I believe people should be free not to work is because  I think that without exploitation, human beings will create a world which reflects their real aspirations and desires. The idea that people must be forced to work is barbaric and dictatorial: the Coalition work-scheme, for instance.

The routine jobs that you mention, True Colors,  are certainly often disagreeable, but this is to a large extent due to exploitation - the workers have no control over the means of production, there is little internal democracy in the workplace (aside from unions), poor wages and long work hours. So I agree: at present, who would want to do these jobs?

The idea that Socialism/Communism is unworkable, a utopia,is a common one. But this is ironic because it is capitalism, not socialism that trades in futures. Capitalists often attempt to foretell the future with their economic forecasts, and this is destructive - giving a false sense of security.   Marx, in fact, was not a utopian - he objected to the utopianists belief that they could win  just through the power of argument. Society for them was a battle of ideas, not a clash of material interests. Marx, on the contrary, was aware that the ideas which really grip people arise through their routine practice, not through intellectual debate. If it is to be more than idle fantasy, a radically different future has to be feasible by being discernable in the present - a potentiality.  The Capitalist system has bequeathed us an immense array of resources which can be used for the good of all, but they are currently hoarded by a wealthy elite.

Stalinist Russia called itself Communist, but this was a propaganda tool. It is ironic that the West actually believed the propaganda, but it is perhaps not so ironic if we consider that this was to the West's advantage -painting a negative picture of Communism was a great advertisement for Capitalism during the cold war. Stalinist Russia certainly had Socialist features  in that there was nationalisation of the means of production, but this is as far as it went. It was closer to State Capitalism, but with dictatorial features and a police state. The workers were heavily exploited, there was no  democracy, a massive bureacracy, and no diffusion of power - hardly what any socialist worthy of the name would want.

I have not read much in the way of Sci Fi, but I will certainly check it out. I am planning on reading a bit of HG Wells soon. Have not heard of Ian M Banks, but will look for him in the library.

Thanks Scorpian

Hope,

Do you like Sci-Fi at all, and if so have you read any of Iain M Bank's Culture novels?

I think you'd like the Culture.

True Colors: I  do not take such a pessimistic view of humanity. You are seeing things in an operational way and are blinded by the current societal values: emphasis on external reward and money. It goes without saying that currently people work to live, work is often boring and degrading, people do it because they have to and not often because they want to. However, there is also a different type of motivation - intrinsic motivation. People can be motivated to do things because it brings them self-respect, self-worth and other feelings which are independent of material gain.

So take the example of street cleaning. Agreed, if this is the be all and end all of a person's life, then for most people this job would not be enjoyable - even in a Communist society. But in a communist society, menial jobs would be shared and celebrated. Extrinsic reward certainly plays a part, but only if it operates in unison with societal validation. So I think that street cleaners should be paid the same as junior teachers are currently paid, and teachers should be paid even more than they are at present. Without street cleaners, toilet cleaners, rubbish collectors, we would all get disease. Prevention comes before cure!. It makes so sense that these people are on such low wages. Our society operates according to the inverse logic of value - financiers and speculators get paid millions when we can live without them, but street cleaners are on the minimum wage when they are indispensable.

The only compulsion for street cleaning etc in a Communist society would be necessity. If no-one cleans the streets, vermin would proliferate and I don't think any right-minded person could possibly tolerate this. And as Scorpian suggests, we can increasingly mechanize very dangerous and dirty work - machines can increasingly perform tasks previously done by humans. I am not saying there are any easy solutions, but I am not bound by the current values and ways of seeing things.

NAS11521 said:

[quote] I This discussion digressed into whether people should be compelled to work , and I argued they should not, and that in a society without exploitation most people (not all) would freely contribute their labour [/quote]

Would they really?  Do you think that people would willingly do jobs such as refuse collectors, cleaners, sewerage workers, etc - especially if there was no compulsion to work?  People do a job in order to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.  If these and other needs were provided for them then they wouldn't work.

Of course there are some fortunate ones who manage to get the job of their dreams but they are very much in the minority and this would always be the case, even in your communist utopia.

Hope's utopian dream could work, but only if the majority of essential tasks were performed by robots, or otherwise automated.

Then, one probably would find that some people would choose to do all sorts of jobs, including refuse collecting, cleaning, and sewarage working, because, well, people are odd, and some would find those things interesting.

The vast majority of people, however, probably wouldn't.

Yes, it is indeed one of those chicken and egg situations.

And, yes, a lack of satisfaction with one's life-position, may well be the driving force that leads one to abuse whatever susbstance it is one is abusing.

But, it can also be the case, particularly with addictive substances, that one can be perfectly happy in one's life, and yet still become addicted, only then heading down a path towards disorder, and eventual ill-health, both mental and physical.

The danger with many drugs is precisely that they have the power to lead perfectly healthy and well-ordered individuals in to a life of disorder and ill-health.

So, one can not simply equate drug or alcohol addiction, and/or abuse, with either a prior disatisfaction with life, suboptimal mental health, or even mental ill-health.

Yes, it is all a matter of degree. Of course an occassional pint or experimentation with drugs does not suggest mental ill health, but if a person becomes dependent on alchohol or drugs, then they may well be trying to self-medicate because their life is unsatisfactory. It is the case that excessive drug use can itself contribute to mental ill health - a chicken and egg dilemma I guess. But I think that some people are more predisposed to become addicted given a particular societal context, and the addiction may then aggravate any mental health problems.

Hope said:

However, the problem in our society is that many people who are called mentally healthy by the Establishment are in fact not achieving optimal mental health.  Arguments, constant stress and anxiety (often work and finance related), alcoholism, recreational drug use, suggest the opposite to mental health. The latter are often mechanisms of escape, which bring happiness and pleasure for a short time but hide a more profound unhappiness.

Well, this is a complex issue, and whilst I agree with you to some extent, I would not say that alcoholism and recreational drug use (and I personally would extend that to some prescription drug use) are a product of mental ill-health (or sub-optimal mental health, or however you wish to put it), but rather that mental ill-health can be the product of addiction whatever form it takes.

There's nothing wrong with the occasional pint, glass of wine, spliff, line of coke, or diazepam tablet (aside from two of them being illegal).

It's when one abuses and/or becomes addicted to those things that the problems start.

I can see your point Scorpian, and I think there is some truth in this perspective.

If someone feels happy and content most of the time, enjoys their life and feels in control of their life, then they are mentally healthy. It is true that 'mental health' is an arbitrary concept and it can be interpreted in many different ways - I agree with you here.

However, the problem in our society is that many people who are called mentally healthy by the Establishment are in fact not achieving optimal mental health.  Arguments, constant stress and anxiety (often work and finance related), alcoholism, recreational drug use, suggest the opposite to mental health. The latter are often mechanisms of escape, which bring happiness and pleasure for a short time but hide a more profound unhappiness.

This discussion digressed into whether people should be compelled to work , and I argued they should not, and that in a society without exploitation most people (not all) would freely contribute their labour.

Hope said:

It might be the case that people who lack curiosity and zest for life are not mentally ill from a clinical standpoint, but it is also true that they lack optimal mental health. A good book that I highly recommend is Eric Fromm's The Sane Society, which puts forth this argument far better than I can. To have optimal mental health, a person will be resilient, interested in things, have meaning in their life, feel secure, seek out new experiences and have respect for life and human worth. Maslow's Hierarchy of needs explains the same view in a slightly different way - as a pyramid.

I'm aware of Maslow's pyramid, but I've not read the book. From the sound of it, I'd probably hate it.

'Optimal mental health' sounds like a sterotyped generalisation to me.

Everyone is an individual, and some people live quite happy, and healthy, lives without one or more of those needs.

Should we label those individuals as insane or mentall ill just because they don't fit some uterly arbitrary concept of 'optimal mental health'?

I think not.

It might be the case that people who lack curiosity and zest for life are not mentally ill from a clinical standpoint, but it is also true that they lack optimal mental health. A good book that I highly recommend is Eric Fromm's The Sane Society, which puts forth this argument far better than I can. To have optimal mental health, a person will be resilient, interested in things, have meaning in their life, feel secure, seek out new experiences and have respect for life and human worth. Maslow's Hierarchy of needs explains the same view in a slightly different way - as a pyramid.

It is often said that people with Autism lack optimal mental health, but this IS a gross generalization, because it takes a few examples and extrapolates from them to include everyone on the spectrum. People with Autism - particularly those with AS - can and often do seek out new experiences. People without Autism impose their own judgements onto those with the condition, and are often wrong. Seeking out new experiences can include, but is not confined to, reading new books, visiting museums, going on outings, pursuing interests to find out new information etc. All this is a form of curiosity and activity. To not have any meaning or zest for life=some form of depression!

I mean that not all infants are so actively and obviously curious.

And those that aren't are not all mentally handicapped.

Likewise for older children, and adults.

So, while some people with mental illness and brain damage experience a loss of curiosity and enthusiasm, this does not imply that all people that lack curiosoity and enthusiasm are mentally ill, or brain damaged.

Or, in other words, 'if A implies B' it is not then valid to just say that 'therefor B imples A'.

That is a logical fallacy.

And the statement "All humans are born with curiosity, a desire to manipulate objects and create - born with imagination and a desire to be active. Only people with severe mental illness, brain damage etc lack these desires." is a generalisation because it simply is not true for all healthy human beings.

You're saying "people with a mental illness, and/or brain damage, lack curiosty, and/or a desire to manipulate objects and create, therefore all healthy humans must posses those qualities" - a gross generalisation.

Unless, of course, you want to define the words "curiosity", and "desire", in such a loose sense as to make the statement effectively tautilogical.

Doing something out of need is not the same doing something out of desire or curiosity.

No, I don't think I am generalizing here. Curiosity and a desire to be active IS a part of the human condition. You only have to observe a healthy infant to work this out. Look how they are constantly exploring their environment, reaching for things, and the incessant 'why?' of the young toddler.  People can lose this innate curiosity and enthusiasm for life due to experience and the constant way in which the system degrades and exhausts them.  This loss of enthusiam can take the form of apathy or severe depression - a spectrum of mental ill health. Optimal mental health is actually quite rare in our society because of inequality, constant work and fear.

Some people with severe brain damage and mental illness lack curiosity and enthusiasm for life, this is a fact, so I don't know what you mean by 'generalizing'.

Hope said:

All humans are born with curiosity, a desire to manipulate objects and create - born with imagination and a desire to be active. Only people with severe mental illness, brain damage etc lack these desires.

So anyone who lacks those desires must be mentally ill, brain damaged, or 'etc'?

Do you not think you're generalising, grossly?