Schizophrenia

So when I say schizophrenia i am discussing the american modern DMV definition... A person with some degree of audio and visual hallucinations accompanied by paranoid delusions...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So what are your thoughts on schizophrenia?

A genetic dysfunction.

I am intrigued by the worlds that they create.

Satyr, What of John Nash...and such types?

Abstract wrote:

Satyr, What of John Nash...and such types?

What of them?

--------------------
Try this as a thought-experiment:


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

...and introduce yourself here, instead of running off and throwing stones.

Let's begin easy...
What is nihilistic about my vies?
Is your reaction to my description of reality negative, and if so, is this evidence of my "nihilism" or is it more evidence of your naivete?

Allow me to quote to aid you in your efforts.

Quote :

When I say other side of nihilism I mean one that has experienced it yet moved on... satyr is of the type that is beyond discomfort of the reality and is at peace, yet he is just pessimistic, and to confident in his opinions at times.

Aside from how confident I am or I should be, let us proceed to the "pessimistic" part.

We'll do so with a metaphor.
Let us say we are in a school, surrounded by big walls, where none can go out and none can enter.
A strict, but friendly, schoolmaster runs the place.
He is quick with the punishments but he always has a smile on his face, so full of happy stories that he is.
Every day he tells the children his tales of woe and wonder. Tales full of incredible monsters, damsels in distress and brave knights, noble, and true.
All his stories end with a happy outcome.

The monster is always vanquished, the damsel always honorable and loyal, the knight always victorious and humble.

Now, let's say a little boy is born in this happy camp.
Let's say he begins telling the children how all of those stories are fake and that the schoolmaster is full of shit.

how would the children react to this boy? What names would they call him?
Is the boy wrong or are the children so unaware and naive and stupid that any hint of a reality beyond their walled school seems "negative" and harsh?

What would Christians call those who tell them that they believe in fairy tale and that there is no afterlife?
What would a fat and ugly girl call a man who tells her the truth, that is that beauty is an indication of genetic fitness and that being fat is an outward manifestation of her inner dysfunctions?
What would a child call a man who tells him that there is no Santa Clause and that he must work for what he wants, instead of wishing it and expecting some magical creature to bring it to him?

The wonderful thing about nihilism is that it comes in two flavors.

One is more honest but bleak...a towards nothingness.
The other happy and hopeful...a towards somethingness.

Both are expressions of the same absence...the absent absolute.
The difference being that the first imagine it as total annihilation, wheres the second imagine it, in a more childish manner, as total completion, total fulfillment.
The Hindus even go so far as to dream of a point in time when they do not have to be reborn into this "vile and miserable" existence....to be forever unborn.
Of course like all hypocritical religions they soften the outcome with some self-contradictory bullshit like imagining this state as conscious/unconsciousness....just as Christians imagine paradise as a land of the living/dead.

Both amount to the same thing: non-existence.
At first glance both psychological attitudes appear conflicting yet, if you study them deeply, you realize that they both claim the same thing from a different vantage point and both are characterized by a deep dissatisfaction with existence as it is experienced.

One would call the other pessimistic and the other will call back the other overoptimistic but both will agree that life, as they both know it, is not acceptable.
Now THIS is nihilism in a nutshell.

To love life, as it is to life self, is not to accept life in the ideal but in the real. To accept not only the nice stuff but even more so the not so nice stuff.

Now consider this:
I, as we are told, all is tending towards increasing entry, then this ordering we call life and consciousness is not only rare but an existence facing extinction.

It is BECAUSE thee is entropy that life emerges.
It is BECAUSE there is mostly death and it is inevitable that life has value.
It is BECAUSE we are ignorant and weak that knowledge and strength is desirable.
It is BECAUSE ugliness and stupidity are ubiquitous that beauty and intelligence attracts.
It is BECAUSE there is no meaning to existence that man seeks it out or must give his own existence meaning.
It is BECAUSE the ideal is never attained and the absolute can never and should never be reached that the striving towards it gains character and nobility.
It is BECAUSE there is no selfless love which is given to all indiscriminately that love and friendship becomes precious.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:

Satyr, What of John Nash...and such types?

What of them?

--------------------
Try this as a thought-experiment:


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

...and introduce yourself here, instead of running off and throwing stones.

Funny I thought that was as much of a support that I could give and feed accceptance to them for you...

Quote :

Let's begin easy...
What is nihilistic about my vies?

nothing i said beyond...din't eye?

Quote :

Is your reaction to my description of reality negative, and if so, is this evidence of my "nihilism" or is it more evidence of your naivete?

Allow me to quote to aid you in your efforts.

depends on what you mean by negative i would imagine... it does not bother me... and at the most I might say your rehtoric is negative or of the glass is half full sound...

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

When I say other side of nihilism I mean one that has experienced it yet moved on... satyr is of the type that is beyond discomfort of the reality and is at peace, yet he is just pessimistic, and to confident in his opinions at times.

Aside from how confident I am or I should be, let us proceed to the "pessimistic" part.

We'll do so with a metaphor.
Let us say we are in a school, surrounded by big walls, where none can go out and none can enter.
A strict, but friendly, schoolmaster runs the place.
He is quick with the punishments but he always has a smile on his face, so full of happy stories that he is.
Every day he tells the children his tales of woe and wonder. Tales full of incredible monsters, damsels in distress and brave knights, noble, and true.
All his stories end with a happy outcome.

The monster is always vanquished, the damsel always honorable and loyal, the knight always victorious and humble.

Now, let's say a little boy is born in this happy camp.
Let's say he begins telling the children how all of those stories are fake and that the schoolmaster is full of shit.

how would the children react to this boy? What names would they call him?
Is the boy wrong or are the children so unaware and naive and stupid that any hint of a reality beyond their walled school seems "negative" and harsh?

You seem to think i think there is something wrong with your point of view... i would think realism is important better they meat it by the boy then the tiger.

Quote :

What would Christians call those who tell them that they believe in fairy tale and that there is no afterlife?
What would a fat and ugly girl call a man who tells her the truth, that is that beauty is an indication of genetic fitness and that being fat is an outward manifestation of her inner dysfunctions?
What would a child call a man who tells him that there is no Santa Clause and that he must work for what he wants, instead of wishing it and expecting some magical creature to bring it to him?

The paradise is often the place with the worst beast, those who know no evil cannot avoid it for themselves or from themselves.

What is or is not a dysfunction is determined by relativity to the current average, an average that shifts over time... what are often called dysfunctions are the mutations of humanity that serve as measures for evolution given alterations in the habitat... what is the current norm is typically that which is being replaced...

I would think by now you know i am schizophrenic...

Fortunately not the worst... given a world of me's functionality would be simple, but those who think of conspiracies are those who can create them, it would be a different place...
Most schizophrenics succumb to the easy route of medication rather then finding ways of mentally copeing... though some cannot; those serious types may be of the sort that could not function even given a world of our types... ( given our type there would be different standards of living...)

I would think it is more fair to call it a dysfunction if under no possible worldly condition could it function.

I honestly don't know that pessimism is the best description for you...when said I was more considering your style of rhetoric then necessarily your personal feelings...

Abstract wrote:

Funny I thought that was as much of a support that I could give and feed accceptance to them for you...

Thanks for the effort but why do you assume that I need to be accepted by such creatures as those?

Abstract wrote:

nothing i said beyond...din't eye?

What?

Abstract wrote:

depends on what you mean by negative i would imagine... it does not bother me... and at the most I might say your rehtoric is negative or of the glass is half full sound...

I've already provided a definition for the term.
In short, what does not require effort to persist is negative, what does is positive.
Man places himself at an imagines center and defines using his binary logic.

Why are categories so disturbing to you?

Abstract wrote:

So when I say schizophrenia i am discussing the american modern DMV definition... A person with some degree of audio and visual hallucinations accompanied by paranoid delusions...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So what are your thoughts on schizophrenia?

I have to say I liked the acronym DMV - which for me is department of motor vehicles. Perhaps you meant DSM(4), or perhaps there is another 'authority'.

Do you think some of your self is schizophrenic and then there are unaffected portions of yourself?

How do you think of this label yourself?

Great you manage not to medicate.

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:

Funny I thought that was as much of a support that I could give and feed accceptance to them for you...

Thanks for the effort but why do you assume that I need to be accepted by such creatures as those?

I didn't assume it just comes natural to me...I do it unintentionally as much as I do it pruposelly...

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:

"]nothing i said beyond...din't eye?

What?

Sorry bad text... should have said, "Nothing... i said, "beyond"...didn't I?" As to say I did not say you 'are' nihilistic...rather that you are beyond that point... or at least beyond what most people think of when they describe someone as nihilistic...IMO

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:

"]depends on what you mean by negative i would imagine... it does not bother me... and at the most I might say your rehtoric is negative or of the glass is half full sound...

I've already provided a definition for the term.
In short, what does not require effort to persist is negative, what does is positive.
Man places himself at an imagines center and defines using his binary logic.

Why are categories so disturbing to you?

[/quote] I'm not disturbed... My point was that regardless of your definitions and rather I understand them or not... my conclusion would be that to the average person (not intellectually necessissarily) your rhetoric or means of discussing things comes accross as what most would describe as "negative" (not in your sense of the word...)

Kovacs wrote:

I have to say I liked the acronym DMV - which for me is department of motor vehicles. Perhaps you meant DSM(4), or perhaps there is another 'authority'.

lol...yes I belive i meant DSM...(I always think DMV for some reason...perhaps my subconcious seeks to margonalize it...)

Quote :

Do you think some of your self is schizophrenic and then there are unaffected portions of yourself?

I think that it is a drastically misunderstood problem... From my on self analysis i have found that as youngling I was remarkably imaginative... i daydreamed beyond what most people do... and what occurs in my opinion is the capacity to image things and create realities becomes habitual and can get out of control... so largely it is a matter of a rediculously overreactive imagination...though perhaps amoung other things...I have considered that there may be to some extint a event-temorality dissassociation involved two...as often i find myself getting paranoid thinking something is wrong to later realize that my event order was incorrect... part of solving that problem was evolving my ability to deduce from present to more likely event sequences...when such becomes an issue...

Quote :

How do you think of this label yourself?

I think that when a person is blind their hearing is improved.

Quote :

Great you manage not to medicate.

The drugs completely destroy my creative side and make me rediculously sleepy...it helped me focus in school and not get paranoid as fuck for a while but i ended up smoking dope to counter balance and decided it was pointless...so I stopped and found that having experienced worse parnoid states while stoned and having dealt with it long enough I had gotten used enough to it to allow the paranoid processings to, while present, be set aside and ignored for the most part... (further I find that I have seen how particular things cause parnoid narratives and have found that I can create my own to a degree that counter balance others...to some extent...though that can be dangerous...)

Abstract wrote:

I'm not disturbed... My point was that regardless of your definitions and rather I understand them or not... my conclusion would be that to the average person (not intellectually necessissarily) your rhetoric or means of discussing things comes accross as what most would describe as "negative" (not in your sense of the word...)

Then in your sense of the word you refer to my position from an emotional standpoint not a rational one.

What does it matter how you or I or anyone reacts to reality?
Is it not logical to assume that if life is a rare phenomenon requiring constant effort to maintain itself that life would develop a "negative" assessment of a reality that is so difficult and challenging and unforgiving?

Satyr wrote:

Abstract wrote:

I'm not disturbed... My point was that regardless of your definitions and rather I understand them or not... my conclusion would be that to the average person (not intellectually necessissarily) your rhetoric or means of discussing things comes accross as what most would describe as "negative" (not in your sense of the word...)

Then in your sense of the word you refer to my position from an emotional standpoint not a rational one.

I operate across multiple frameworks.

Quote :

What does it matter how you or I or anyone reacts to reality?
Is it not logical to assume that if life is a rare phenomenon requiring constant effort to maintain itself that life would develop a "negative" assessment of a reality that is so difficult and challenging and unforgiving?

Taking others reactions into consideration when communicating one's ideas is important if one wants their ideas to be more broadly accepted...(not that I am saying you seek such)

I believe there is a reason why the word polite is so close to the word politics.

Abstract wrote:

lol...yes I belive i meant DSM...(I always think DMV for some reason...perhaps my subconcious seeks to margonalize it...)

hey, who knows, maybe the DMV would we be better than the psychiatry/pharmaceutical company combination. Just a practical issue with some tests, small licencing fee, occasional renewals. All very pat and matter of fact.

Quote :

I think that it is a drastically misunderstood problem... From my on self analysis i have found that as youngling I was remarkably imaginative... i daydreamed beyond what most people do... and what occurs in my opinion is the capacity to image things and create realities becomes habitual and can get out of control... so largely it is a matter of a rediculously overreactive imagination...though perhaps amoung other things...I have considered that there may be to some extint a event-temorality dissassociation involved two...as often i find myself getting paranoid thinking something is wrong to later realize that my event order was incorrect... part of solving that problem was evolving my ability to deduce from present to more likely event sequences...when such becomes an issue...

And when thinks of how society functions, where groups share paranoia - and or are led to - leading to things like war or slavery or ludicrous loans or purchasing, who doesn't have this problem on some level?

Quote :

I think that when a person is blind their hearing is improved.

Interesting! So how has your 'hearing' improved?

Quote :

The drugs completely destroy my creative side and make me rediculously sleepy

Which ones were they, if you don't mind answering.

Quote :

...it helped me focus in school and not get paranoid as fuck for a while but i ended up smoking dope to counter balance and decided it was pointless...so I stopped and found that having experienced worse parnoid states while stoned and having dealt with it long enough I had gotten used enough to it to allow the paranoid processings to, while present, be set aside and ignored for the most part... (further I find that I have seen how particular things cause parnoid narratives and have found that I can create my own to a degree that counter balance others...to some extent...though that can be dangerous...)

Paranoia is just misplaced pattern recognition. Though that 'just' can be a huge problem. It would be amazing if you could shift that kind of pattern grabbing to other areas. Perhaps this is where you 'hear' better than others.

Kovacs wrote:

I think that it is a drastically misunderstood problem... From my on self analysis i have found that as youngling I was remarkably imaginative... i daydreamed beyond what most people do... and what occurs in my opinion is the capacity to image things and create realities becomes habitual and can get out of control... so largely it is a matter of a rediculously overreactive imagination...though perhaps amoung other things...I have considered that there may be to some extint a event-temorality dissassociation involved two...as often i find myself getting paranoid thinking something is wrong to later realize that my event order was incorrect... part of solving that problem was evolving my ability to deduce from present to more likely event sequences...when such becomes an issue...

And when thinks of how society functions, where groups share paranoia - and or are led to - leading to things like war or slavery or ludicrous loans or purchasing, who doesn't have this problem on some level?[/quote] Indeed it is funny how many of my "paranoias" were algorithmically the same as religious thoughts... I mean to say that they were functionally the same just a different color maybe...

Kovacs wrote:

Quote :

I think that when a person is blind their hearing is improved.

Interesting! So how has your 'hearing' improved?

I have a tendency to think of things that peole can do, they just don't. I have found that parnoias can often come from assuming those around you are smarter or better then you at something. For example it is one thing to wonder about conspiracy theories it is another to consider the deep details that make them perfectly plausible... Recognizing how things could be done one sees ways I guess of using such ...patterns... more productively... for example psychological warfare...or warfare with deep considerations of psychological issues...IDK it is hard to sum it up but for the most part it is a matter of the imagination inventing ways things could be done in fear that they might be thus leading to understanding ways of doing other or similar things... In general though i find that my imagination and ability to constuct visualconstructs, to think visually about typically non visual things and such is rather strong...Not to mention some of the crap I have thought of would make for good stories...

Kovacs wrote:

Quote :

The drugs completely destroy my creative side and make me rediculously sleepy

Which ones were they, if you don't mind answering.

First they put me on geodone but it "relaxed" me so much I felt like i had to force myself to breath...literally... then zyprexia did well and was the last one I was on...

Kovacs wrote:

Quote :

...it helped me focus in school and not get paranoid as fuck for a while but i ended up smoking dope to counter balance and decided it was pointless...so I stopped and found that having experienced worse parnoid states while stoned and having dealt with it long enough I had gotten used enough to it to allow the paranoid processings to, while present, be set aside and ignored for the most part... (further I find that I have seen how particular things cause parnoid narratives and have found that I can create my own to a degree that counter balance others...to some extent...though that can be dangerous...)

Paranoia is just misplaced pattern recognition. Though that 'just' can be a huge problem. It would be amazing if you could shift that kind of pattern grabbing to other areas. Perhaps this is where you 'hear' better than others.

The odd thing is that my pattern recognition is amazing, or can be, it as if it is inconsistent.
I am quite good at coming up with complex patterns...so perhaps that is a "hearing"...

Part of the problem is trying to follow the 'expected' patterns... for example on a test once it showed a person cooking and it asked me to order the images... I failed... but the funny thing is that really my order worked...it just wasn't the order that one typically does the things in...

And i find that many of my delusional thoughts i have had are actually rather logical...much of discarding them ultimately requires excepting that not everyone is working against you, that not everyone is in on a conspiracy that you are kept from knowing... the common way people say that is silly is to say that it is self centered to think that...to which one must wonder; what does it mean to be self centered. Why couldn't everybody be hiding something from me? It is possible, it can be done, all that can be said is that it is 'unlikely'... one can suggest a reason why it is illogical...and then i can always find a rationalization...typically...(the funny thing is that really there is no way to assert a probability to really say it is unlikely, one can only say it is unlikely in that it has never been known to be done, but unknown things happen all the time...so what really is the probability then?....)

Abstract wrote:

Indeed it is funny how many of my "paranoias" were algorithmically the same as religious thoughts... I mean to say that they were functionally the same just a different color maybe...

I think much of what gets called mental illness is actually that one is not more crazy than other people, but rather out of synch and usually suffering because of it. Sanity is fashion. This is not to deny (or particularly affirm) that genetic patterns may be present in individuals who then get diagnosed with some of these syndromes or that it can be painful or that it may be better for some to medicate their way out of them - I certainly think that is their right. It's just that I see insanity all over the place - call insanity a lack of contact with reality or destructive AND counterprodutive beliefs.

Quote :

I have a tendency to think of things that peole can do, they just don't. I have found that parnoias can often come from assuming those around you are smarter or better then you at something. For example it is one thing to wonder about conspiracy theories it is another to consider the deep details that make them perfectly plausible... Recognizing how things could be done one sees ways I guess of using such ...patterns... more productively... for example psychological warfare...or warfare with deep considerations of psychological issues...IDK it is hard to sum it up but for the most part it is a matter of the imagination inventing ways things could be done in fear that they might be thus leading to understanding ways of doing other or similar things... In general though i find that my imagination and ability to constuct visualconstructs, to think visually about typically non visual things and such is rather strong...Not to mention some of the crap I have thought of would make for good stories...

I hope you write, then. I have a fairly skilled imagination, but I wish I could couple it more to creation than I have.

Quote :

The odd thing is that my pattern recognition is amazing, or can be, it as if it is inconsistent.
I am quite good at coming up with complex patterns...so perhaps that is a "hearing"...

Sensing is at least in part sifting for patterns.

Quote :

Part of the problem is trying to follow the 'expected' patterns... for example on a test once it showed a person cooking and it asked me to order the images... I failed... but the funny thing is that really my order worked...it just wasn't the order that one typically does the things in...

Up until junior high school a friend and I would pick wrong answers on standardized, multiple choice tests and defend them vigorously. That was often cultural bias, habit, poor thinking involved in the right answers. Apart from the good training this was, it was amazing in retrospect to notice that no a single teacher appreciated what we were doing or could, at least, highlight the good characteristics of it.

Quote :

And i find that many of my delusional thoughts i have had are actually rather logical

I think deduction is hysterically wildly overrated. People show a remarkable naivte around philosophy of language issues.

Quote :

...much of discarding them ultimately requires excepting that not everyone is working against you, that not everyone is in on a conspiracy that you are kept from knowing... the common way people say that is silly is to say that it is self centered to think that...to which one must wonder; what does it mean to be self centered. Why couldn't everybody be hiding something from me? It is possible, it can be done, all that can be said is that it is 'unlikely'... one can suggest a reason why it is illogical...and then i can always find a rationalization...typically...(the funny thing is that really there is no way to assert a probability to really say it is unlikely, one can only say it is unlikely in that it has never been known to be done, but unknown things happen all the time...so what really is the probability then?....)

I would say it has been done. anyone who had an insight ahead of society's ability to receive it faced near universal conspiracies. Likewise anyone who wanted to act/express themselves in a way society as not ready for. I also think that many people who just seem insightful, great, different....face this as a preemptive reaction.

Not that I want to bolster your paranoia.

Kovacs wrote:

Abstract wrote:

Indeed it is funny how many of my "paranoias" were algorithmically the same as religious thoughts... I mean to say that they were functionally the same just a different color maybe...

I think much of what gets called mental illness is actually that one is not more crazy than other people, but rather out of synch and usually suffering because of it. Sanity is fashion. This is not to deny (or particularly affirm) that genetic patterns may be present in individuals who then get diagnosed with some of these syndromes or that it can be painful or that it may be better for some to medicate their way out of them - I certainly think that is their right. It's just that I see insanity all over the place - call insanity a lack of contact with reality or destructive AND counter produtive beliefs.

Yes... the defnining as to whteher someone is sane requires a definition of reality...of which there is many differing opinions...

Kovacs wrote:

I hope you write, then. I have a fairly skilled imagination, but I wish I could couple it more to creation than I have.

I actually wrote something that came out of three linked hallucinations (one while I was stoned) (one right after I woke up in the morning)_ ( and the other was actually a drea,...so not really a hallucination) I posted it in the 2 page essay place that d63 started...

Kovacs wrote:

Up until junior high school a friend and I would pick wrong answers on standardized, multiple choice tests and defend them vigorously. That was often cultural bias, habit, poor thinking involved in the right answers. Apart from the good training this was, it was amazing in retrospect to notice that no a single teacher appreciated what we were doing or could, at least, highlight the good characteristics of it.

I find that often the types that seek to teach are those of the conformist mentality...

Kovacs wrote:

I would say it has been done. anyone who had an insight ahead of society's ability to receive it faced near universal conspiracies. Likewise anyone who wanted to act/express themselves in a way society as not ready for. I also think that many people who just seem insightful, great, different....face this as a preemptive reaction.

Not that I want to bolster your paranoia.

No worries...

phoneutria wrote:

I am intrigued by the worlds that they create.

Are you aware of any samples I can check myself?

By that I mean writings.