[PEN-L:33441] Re: Re: Re: Re: Too much PC

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 12/26/02 10:44:13 PM Pacific Standard Time, andie_nachgeborenen@xxxxxxxxx writes:

> >It is quite hopeless to fight against the use of terms such as
> "crazy," "nuts," "loony tunes," even "lunacy" and "lunatic," to apply to
> intellectual, social, or political characteristics. But your (and my)
> goal can still be achieved. We must attack the use of any of these terms
> to apply to people who actually suffer from mental illness. 
>
> I agree with that. Californians are still fair game, though. They get the nice weather, we get to make fun of their craziness. 
>
> jks


I am curious.  Has anyone consider the modern question of "craziness" or mental illness from a materialist standpoint, and then a Marxist description of process evolution? I would suggest that the question be framed in  the context of the growth and evolution of industrial society and how this development reconfigures what is called "illness." 

In other words the fundamentality is reducible to "metal poisoning" as the primary characteristic of this particular epoch. Is not industrial by definition metal poisoning society? 


Melvin P.