Tab, how may Cassirer fit in here and this:
"For those who’s enthusiasm is double their doubt.
That’s true 
"
{Course, answering or not is no indication of whatever} - meno’ s citation
Meh, some things require philosophy, some things don’t. This thread is ‘some things don’t’ thread.
I tend to agree , but one never knows here. , where multiple personae may represent the others, as to where the thing comes from or, where it’s heading. It may be a case of misdiagnosis, especially coming from other regions.
You have a spot on your face. It’s a spot. Not a cancer, not a transdimensional portal to another world, not the face of the buddha. It’s a spot.
If you keep on picking away at it, all you are doing is prolonging the time it takes to heal, and giving yourself a scar.
Best thing to do is just put some cream on and forget about it.
Soon enough it’s all better.
sup, wong… bows
you’re in a difficult situation bro because you can’t know for sure whether you’re crazy or not. for all you know you could be a prophet or something. so what we gotta do is work out a safe and rational position for you to take while this shit is going down in your head. so i’m gonna offer you a line of reasoning that’ll get you in good with god (if he exists), as well as keep you straight if he doesn’t.
rule number one: no reasonable god would ever speak to a human being. and i’ll tell you why. god knows that you wouldn’t be able to trust a voice in your head… and not only that… to do so would be in direct violation of the principles of reason he designed you to have (which you exercise in your distrust). god wouldn’t commit such a gaffe, see. so you can be sure the voice wasn’t god’s.
next up. spirits and shit. can’t trust them either, and i’ll you why. if we’ve ruled out the possibility of the voice being god’s, but maintain the possibility of it being the voice of a spirit, we’ve got a problem.
premise one: if there’s only one spirit that exists, and this spirit isn’t god’s, then we have a subordinate spirit that can’t be trusted.
premise two: if there are multiple spirits, then we can’t be sure the spirit who talked to us is the one that’s right.
same problem socrates pointed out to the greeks when they were discussing the arguments between their gods. you can’t trust any of em.
so this leaves us with a genuine hallucination, in which case you’re gonna be okay. this just means that your brain is talking to itself… and as weird as this may seem, it’s perfectly cool as long as your brain doesn’t tell your brain to do something that’ll get you arrested.
hope this helps. bows
Modernity pathologizes spontaneous mental imagery of the soul. That’s kind of fucked up. No?
You’re getting close to my thought, but I suspect it means more. I think schizophrenia exposes the presence of the God. She doesn’t want to control our minds. She just want to interrupt your normal life. And the cohesions between the God and every human beings are strong. So strong that it requires her to speak to us. She speaks in order to gimmie us more freedom.
It “requires” philosophy, of course. It is an important hint given by the God in our world to her actual existence. The God may not able to enter our world physically, but she can speak to us wirelessly.
Thank you all of you guys. And of course, everyone has her own ways of thinking. Since nobody is capable of changing others’ minds, our discussions continue. 
not me. i’ve blocked/registered as spam all her calls. she needs to get her shit together and worry about the 1,875 children that die every five minutes, first, before she tries to call me… cuz i ain’t tryin to hear it.
I feel ambivalent about posting this abstract but it was something I observed about schizophrenia when I worked with her:
“Defined in 1910 by Eugen Bleuler as the fundamental symptom of disorders in the spectrum of schizophrenia, ambivalence is the tendency of the schizophrenic mind to make—in a non-dialectic and unsurpassable manner for the subject—two affective attitudes or two opposite ideas coexist at the same time and with the same intensity. Bleuler’s originality was that he thought of ambivalence as the result of an associative loosening brought on by a splitting (Spaltung), or even the clear and radical disappearance (Zerspaltung) of strong associations coming from empirical thought. This symptom, which is always present, even in the mildest of cases, can manifest itself in an affective form (affective Ambivalenz), a volitional form (Ambitendenz), or an intellectual form (intellektuelle Ambivalenz). Nowadays, criterium for diagnosing schizophrenia no longer mention Bleuler’s notion of ambivalence, the major reproach being that it is a symptom that is too rare, too vague, and too psychoanalytic. It is probably this last point that is the most justified. Affective ambivalence, placed at the center of the theory of instincts, is defined according to the subject’s personality structure: it is integrated in a neurotic patient (Freud, 1938), split in a borderline patient (Kernberg, 2004), and paradoxical in a schizophrenic patient (Racamier, 1990). Examined from the viewpoint of psychopathology, we will describe these different forms of ambivalence and explain in what way they differ, to show that Bleulerian ambivalence remains a most interesting basic disorder to diagnose, before presenting equivalents that we were able to find from the angle of phenomenological psychiatry. We will then complete our exposé with contributions from the fields of experimental psychology and psychiatric neurosciences.” cairn-int.info/abstract-E_P … er-new.htm
True! Psychologically . Aesthetically, by virtue of the very symptomatic defense, inadequate, as a form of compemsation.
How about. Scott Powell’s commentary on George Orwell’s* ‘double think’?
Modern aesthetics has.come a long ways from Kierkegaard’s work, 'This sickness unto death.(ref: Antonio Lamarka- ‘despair and schizophrenia’ a comparative study between Kierkegaard and Laing)
{ See Laing’s Commentary}
Scott Powell was member of the Hoover Institute, and the Heritige Foundation .
*Totalitarianism, however, does not so much promise an age of faith as an age of schizophrenia. A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud.- George Orwell
All these sources point towards an anti derivitive, which left unrealized can not become a functional tool in modern psychiatry. Realized, the may rise to an effective rationale of anti-psychiatry.
Not to mention the rise of French symbolism in Capitalism and schizophrenia.(Guattari).
The days of anti-Oedipus
{ Note: references are deeply hidden, but available on some level of recall; weekdays better suited}
Do not let modern psychology to take over humanity. All their experiments are invalid because there are no subjects that are equal to each other. Psychologists are burying the truth behind schizophrenia and undermined the proofs to the existence of the God by developing their fake science. Indeed they are fake science. The manipulations from the God is the answer behind all myths. I think my position towards this matter is weak since I was diagnosed as a schizophrenia patient and I am such a small potato with compare to this giant machine i.e. the modern psyhcology. However, I regard myself as one of the many whistle-blowers against modern psychology.
lol, a whistle-blower with no alternatives but to speak out in online forums. It makes me feel better to receive the replies from you guys though. Thank you!
Anti Oedipus does nit cover the various nuanced conditions of major psychosis, other then conflating a suggested overlap between the factors of political and economic variance causing illness
To add to that, the broadly painted factors do not deliniate the. more finally shaded variences.
Schizotypal, effects are prominent and correspond to higher levels of measurable intelligence, and usually are not accompanied by psychotic symptoms.
It has been suggested even of Jeesus, who has been studied widely, and it is more likely than not that this attempt has failed
My brother had schizophrenia from the age of 18 until his death at 63 last month. He too was afficted by audible hallucinations.
Schizophrenia ispoorly understannd and the drugs offered to control it are very harmful to the other systems of the body. My brother has a list of drugs through his life, such as Chlorpromazine, and Clozipine. In short periods they provided some clarity, but the side effects meant he stopped taking the pills. Clozipine was better than others but his chain smoking and the bad effects of clozipine gave him a heart failure and pulmonary problems.
His view of god changed through his life, but his most common response to god was anger.
What sort of god inflicts schizophrenia upon people? How much evil is in gods heart to punish an innocent boy.
I suggest that god does not exist.
If god does exist, then what kind of a god must it/ he/ she be?
My advice to you is to stop worrying about god. Understand that the voices you are hearing are generated by you inner self.
Let me tell you that everyone, I mean nearly everyone on earth has internal voices. I often hear people who have died, old friends, members of my family living and dead. I am not schizophrenic. I have no mental problems.
These voices are just my imagination. I talk to characters that help me think things through. If I have a problem I talk through the parts of the problem with myself. But sometimes because they are in the voice of another person the words can reflect what they would have said. FOr example…
When I put on my coat I can hear the voice of my grandmother telling me to wear a scarf too. She has been dead for 30 years.
If you can understand that the voices you hear are pat of you - part of your own conscious reality then that might help you use them to your own advantage, to help you work out what is going on in peace, and not be troubled.
This is utter garbage.
You should be ashamed spreading this bullshit.
This sentence does not even parse.
‘Schizophrenia’ is only ok in our culture if you’re a Jedi Knight.
Or if u can double think…even if it’ s not a conspiracy…& not resist too much
Like me’ cant talk to sculptures
If I could i’ d be that much wiser ar least as far as double talk is concerned.
Ref: Doubleday, Polanyi m. 'On the Meno Paradox
Note: there are wider implications that may connect the lowest level ‘intelligences’ of viral communication, with that of upper echelon: as a devil’s advocate may play.
Note: there are wider implications that may connect the lowest level ‘intelligences’ of viral communication, with that of upper echelon: as a devil’s advocate may play.