Asperger's Label No Longer Relevant?

Post Reply New Topic

So then we are not people here, just objects of your study?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptLLtHF3ojo[/youtube]

Objects are people and people are objects. Ultimately I am an object. Though I have bias as you do. I try and practice removing myself as a bias after reviewing my own thoughts in context. Though you should note I start topics for a certain reason and say certain things for discovery. Now the equilibrium given these are social issues primarily is hard to define as a center point of truth or importance. I am beginning as I have stated several times with concern to the law as what is considered substantial disability and a mode of thought of societal adaption for inclusion.

I think for an Autism community advocacy equilibrium to be developed people ought to really define the central ethics as a starting point. I can start another post within the next 24hrs to get more specific. I need to really think about how I could outline this.

A truism, perhaps even a tautology. But useless and un-illuminating, It fails to address your deprersonalization of those that come here, reducing us to objects to feed your intellectual curiosity.



Yet another trite truism.



This is not possible. Pure objectivity is unachievable. You flatter yourself into thinking you have attained a level of detachment that imbues your observations with some special status.



So we are being played? These topics of yours are little thought experiments designed to elicit information, but not actually to interact with people on a PERSONAL level?



What a vacuous statement. Just what is a "center point of truth". This is classic CJ, laying down a sequence of words that has great alliteration and filled with emotionally laden terms, but when parsed are found to be devoid of meaning. On one hand you claim detached objectivity and in the very next sentence you invoke the entirely subjective concept of truth. You can't be scientifically objective and philosophically introspective at the same time.



And yet, BY LAW, vis a vis my formal diagnosis as autistic, I am disabled, even though further above in this thread you insinuated I am not. Would you change the law? Have you some objective measure to determine a level of impairment at which someone is magically transformed from disabled to
not disabled? What ethic gives YOU the right to make that determination?



More fancy words without meaning. What is an "advocacy equilibrium"? It sounds fantastical, but has no meaning in real life. Equilibrium assumes some balance between opposing forces. Such balance can only be achieved when the forces are sufficiently defined that a centroid can be determined. You can neither sufficiently define the forces nor are the forces we are able to recognize static enough to allow a centroid to be determined. The multiple forces in this culture, in disability advocacy, in autism, in psychiatry, psychology, in neuroscience, education, politics, etc etc, are all dynamic and constantly changing. Any equilibrium you think you have achieved or defined would immediately be destroyed by the intrinsic and wild variability in the forces you are attempting to balance.



Who gets to sit at that table? Are you flexible enough of mind to converse with people holding disparate conceptualizations of reality without falling back on your own defensive mechanisms? You don't respond well in this internet forum to anything that challenges your ideas. Yet you think you should sit at such a table, perhaps even decide who else should participate in such a discussion?



OK.

The problem is the nature of the problem is not strictly defined by Empirical or Rationism stand points but that of the subjective individuals system of thought. For a central point of understanding to be derived and for points of view to begin there as a generality of understanding we'd compromise beliefs and not just personal but organized belief systems.

The autism politics are far beyond simplicity but are as well made to complex just as easily and sometimes to protect points of view. What governs the reasons for interpretations can only be generalized such as self-identity and the label, preservation and related. Forming an absolute in these situations is difficult and as I've stated before I can figure out the basic structuralism and functionalism of this politic but seldom absolutes and opinion is not always truth.

I will figure another post and ask for input.

My suggestion is to not attach the label so easily to your minds reality in future topics. You must also realize that I have very few beliefs. I believe in the process of finding an absolute but in social and political topics this is very hard and not 1+1=2.

With regards to ethics what I am doing is very ethical. This is because of the public relations mess that existed without my interaction. You can choose to participate in any conversation you want on this forum. I have achieved a fair number of positive interactions.

My suggestion is that you quit assuming that I and others here are by default guilty of easily attaching labels to our mind's reality. This statement alone implies that you do not so easily do so and allows you to justify a position of superior understanding.



I do not believe the absolutes you seek exist. I believe that seeking them is a waste of time. We easily define absolutes and in so doing create paradox within those definitions. Is this a deficit in our definitions? Our language? Is reality intrinsically paradoxical or are we simply unable to apprehend it without introducing paradoxical ideation? None of this matters. While we could argue endlessly about it, people need things hat can be provided without answering the questions.

If you come from a point of superiority vs. inferiority and so on it is not helpful. I have no intent of being better then you or worse off. I am not here to be superior or inferior to you. It is interesting because Asperger's being removed from the DSM evoked in social discourse a dislike with the stereotypes of autism but also the inability to be as easily diagnosed by some. These two components in social discourse are important but not the equilibrium (central point) of thought. My idea was to define the polarities of perceptions for ease of reference as an equilibrium which I would have explained in another post and will still do but you didn't seem to like it as it was a fancy word.

There is a balance between taking things personally and depersonalizing. However my thought it to understand first in generality. This then creates the ability to derive better rationality on other issues in the respective contexts.

I put a great deal of effort into understanding your point of view. Your choice of language often gives me the impression that you do not put similar effort into understanding mine, or others, point of view. You seem very reluctant to accept that your intentions are not made clear in your writing precisely because your use of language is atypical. It is only because that I know you are on the spectrum that I continue to probe your ideas. I suspect that what you think is not entirely in phase with what you write and that what you think is likely very interesting.



I see little causality connecting the removal of Asperger's from the DSM to the types of social perceptions and discussions you mention. Maybe this is because I have not been part of the autistic milieu for all of my life so I have not experienced the evolution of self perception among autistics. Also, the particular label is not that important to me. Labels are useful to me only insofar as they promote communication and understanding. If removing Asperger's as a diagnostic label allows better communications and understanding then I am all for it.



You regularly assume that what you mean by a phrase is also is being correctly understood. In the previous context, "equilibrium" had no real meaning as it was used as an overly broad generality. In this context I can see how it might apply because you have constrained the discourse to something less absolute. It would be helpful if you described the polarities. Cats and dogs? Hot and cold? ASAN and Autism Speaks?



In some contexts, "personally" takes precedence. You often don't supply the verbal cues that allow others to easily differentiate contexts where depersonalization takes precedence, personalization is appropriate, and where they coexist in balance.



Bottom up vs top down analysis. Both have their place.

I think you will find my next post interesting. Until then enjoy this link. I am watching this. Yes I read your whole post. Just that I am more into the generalities at this point. You are simply one member of a great many of contextual concern as I am.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/06/e ... tml?hpt=C2

you yourself have started your own company, wouldnt this count as gainful employment and thus imply that you are not autistic or disabled?

autism is a social and communication disorder. it does not manifest itself only when you walk through the doors of your job. it affects every aspect of life, including employment, daily living skills, self care skills, and interpersonal relationships. just because someone doesnt have severe impairment in one area doesnt mean the other areas are unaffected or that they are not deserving or requiring assistance in those other areas.

the area of advocacy that you are involved in is a valuable and necessary one, but it is not the only one. there is more to life than just work. there is actually living, too.

if we look strictly at disability eligibility here in the US, gainful employment is $900 a month in income. this isnt even minimum wage for a full time job. how many of us would be able to survive on that? $900/month is BELOW the federal poverty level. yet that is what the govt considers "gainful employment." so do we then say that someone who can work only part time or for less than minimum wage and is therefore below the federal poverty level, is not disabled by autism?

maybe its just me, but i want better for my family members with autism than to subsist on $900 a month. not a lot of living, liberties, and pursuing happiness going on with only $900 a month. i want them to live happy and fulfilled lives, and that goes well beyond $900 and in some ways doesnt even include monetary considerations.

I think it's kind of weird how some people get all huffy about others self-diagnosing. Are there really that many people out there who go around telling the world they have AS when they aren't diagnosed yet? I never thought it was that popular to have AS.

I'm just starting the process of getting diagnosed and second what Verdani's said- it can be really, really difficult, time consuming, and expensive. I'm pretty certain that I have it, my psychologist agreed with me which is really enough for me, but it would be nice to have an official diagnosis. I don't go around telling everyone I have AS though, only my fiance knows that I think I have it. I don't blame people at all who think they have it but who don't have an official diagnosis. I think you can get a pretty accurate idea of whether you have it or not through research. Plus it can be so challenging and often you have to do a lot of searching for find a psychologist who has experience with diagnosing adults. That's been my problem now, finding someone who has experience with adults because there's no way I'm spending over $1000 on an assessment if the person has no experience with adults.

Yeah, I have told...two people? In real life that I think I have it (my therapist and the woman who helped me file my SSI paperwork). I've told a few people I know, but I find the responses kind of negative and frustrating from many NTs and otherwise not autistic people, even when they're trying to be supportive.

And this wasn't something I rushed into, it's something I spent over a decade trying to avoid, even when it was staring me in the face three years ago. And if there is one thing I do regret, it's that I went into denial rather than investigating then.

I have allot of help with my company under my IPP/ISP with a support worker. My contracted employees thus far all have support workers. I am good at certain things the other things other people do. The only reason I am studying this social stuff here is because of an Aspie Pride social attack against my company online. I want to know your minds and if it should happen again because very high functioning pride people are deemed a threat to the project should it originate from any other pride organization rather then a small social clique some claiming ties to ASAN I will confront the movement with media, YouTube and with a massive mailing to online autism groups. Pride needs to be put in it's place sometimes and I have what I need so far in political understanding.

The exreme pride mentality I interacted with was down right cruel, mean and lacked compassionate regard to inclusion. Anything further threatening my project, the progress and the fail safe I have constructed with 4 years of strict dedication will lead to a political devastation of the pride modality in autism politics as it threatens projects that seek the publics attention and understanding. It's good to have a good self-esteem but please leave me and others alone with you abortion and related societal autism image issues.

this new system is a change,change doesn always mean better or worse.i will say i think the geek syndrome mentality is a west coast thing,i have never heard that in the boston area.i would definatly say aspergers goes way deeper than just geekyness.geek syndrome probably is more apt of non verbal learning disability,which is not diagnosed as much as it was in the 90's today its probably merged with aspergers.i always have refered to my self as autistic because way back when i was younger noneone had ever heard of that,but evryone saw rainman right.prepare to get condicended by n.t,'s more using the term autism.as opposed to being trivialized more with aspergers.its a loose loose either way

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N_yWvmTIYg&feature=watch_response[/youtube]

My apologies the equilibrium model is not available for the public view. In my imagination it has been deemed classified by the autism mothership. What this means is it doesn't really exist to you, at all and is a figment of imaginations and including mine.