“Mental distress is today often perceived as something devoid of context, as an individual medical condition or a failure instead of a human condition linked to the social context one exists in” Iva’s observations ties in with Dr. Emmy Van Deruzen’s who makes the distinction between mental distress that manifest in our mind by -as I understand it- all manner of character defects and pent up unresolved feeling and the distress causes by this often sick society we live in. In her lecture, Dr. Deruzen said the following “what is existential therapy? Well, I like to call it existential therapy because it is not just about psychotherapy. Psychotherapy is a therapy that focuses on the mind, on one person’s individual mind. It’s very individualistic but existential therapy focuses on life it, focuses on the life that you lead in the way that you lead it. It focuses not just on what is in your mind but also what is in between you and other people, in between you and the political world, in between you and your cultural environment, your family, your backgrounds, your history, your future -all those different elements come just as much into focus as your mind” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCo266WuzJg&t=726s&ab_channel=TheWeekendUniversity Aside from the above, and among the many books I’ve read that saved my existential life, one of them is by Steven James Bartlett titled “Normality does not equal mental health: the need to look elsewhere for standards of good psychological health” An excerpt: “The fortitude and obduracy of systems of belief are their strength but also their downfall. Conservative thinking-adherence to and defense of conventions that are dominant at any particular time-therefore automatically brings with it a limited field of vision and a self-chosen myopia. If any blame can he laid for periods of slowed, nonexistent, or retrograde intellectual and scientific development, for periods of uncreative, sluggish, and at times imperceptible growth, that blame can he placed both on the natural human unwillingness to call into question beliefs that apparently have served well enough in the past and on the deeply entrenched disinclination to step outside of the preferred category set. Individuals who are willing to do these things tend to be few, and they should expect to meet correspondingly deeply rooted resistance, which of course indeed they have throughout the past. As a consequence of the psychology of belief, when we look at the history of science we see that its most basic concepts and presuppositions are often the least examined. They form the basis for all else in scientific thought, so that in their very mental activity scientists make habitual use of them. This results in it being all the more intellectually difficult and challenging to place them in the light of day. Since they serve as the fundamental, core conceptual vocabulary of scientific thought, they resist critical examination, because for a scientist to do this, he or she believes, often incorrectly, that those very concepts and presuppositions must be used” Dr. Bartlett seriously questions our entire educational system and the mental health field as we know it. He is among the few who are not afraid to question authority. You would think someone in MIA would do a throughout review of his book because I believe Dr. Bartlett has a lot to offer MIA and its readers. Iva, if you are reading this and interested in writing a review, I’ll send you a free hardback copy.