## My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

You have great insight and yes this creation of this condition is reflective of my ego, the human ego. This is all too common in those people, many of which may be well known philosophers, political party leaders, leading ideologists, as well as every day common people, whom shape their belief system to be something that is not correct yet will not be able to process directly contradicting information to their belief system. Subconsciously the mind protects the conscious mind from reeling back from being blatantly wrong. Enter cognitive bias. I don't know why we has human's have this defense mechanism but hopefully we as a species can evolve to eliminate it, personally I don't see the benefit of it except to protect the ego. If the ego is more important than perceiving reality correctly to survival of the human, perhaps we have the benefit of this cognitive bias. Of course, my example is much more extreme.

There was a time when I took a handwriting analysis at the county fair and for the imaginative section, the graph, (which resembled a richter scale or polygraph test) was literally too high off the paper in the imaginative category to be measured. That stuck with me when I realized how I created my own reality, but not within my will. A large part of our mind is entirely out of our control, but I still vie for free will regardless philosophically.

As for your analysis, I couldn't point out anything here that I could say I disagree with or that you are wrong on.

WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher

Posts: 3508
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

Yes this did spark my interest in philosophy, subjectivity, objectivity, logic, and essentially everything intellectual as well. I was tired of nonsense, I overdosed on fantasy and reality became my pursuit.

Yes, it was sort of link a revenge on the world, this ridiculous place. Perhaps somewhere unconsciously I was thinking if its ridiculous they want I'll give it to em. I don't know. I don't medicate at all anymore. I will drink some alcohol once in awhile while going out, weddings, stuff like that and I have a good time without going overboard. Most people who don't have this disorder who are worse off than me, mentally.

WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher

Posts: 3508
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

Ierrellus wrote:WWIII,
You were able to survive your "decent into the maelstrom" and to emerge into what the MI (Mental Illness) professionals call a positive outcome. I have a dear friend who may not be so lucky. In support of your remembering psychotic events and ideas I can state that my friend does also. Best wishes for your continued success. You might want to see my thread or to read Torrey's "Surviving Schizophrenia". The latter covers all bases of questions asked and is a reputable guide for exploring the latest research, for explaining how parents and friend can deal with a shizophrenic and how one can advocate for better therapies for the mentally ill.

There is no dealing with a schizophrenic, the less interaction the better, the less stimulation the better, for the schizophrenic. The only thing that works at least, in the beginning, is medicine, at its most severe. The only way to help a schizophrenic without medicine is to reduce their chances for mental stimulation as much as possible, because nothing you say or do can or will help, because there is no reasoning with the unreasonable. If there is a drop in severity that is the time to come with a loving effort to support taking medicine, hopefully that will work

I don't know why I took my meds. I had a girl who helped me along and I took it for her. I was like everyone else, the medicine was bad for me, keeping me to be someone I am not, or its poisoning my mind, limiting my thoughts, slowing me down.

WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher

Posts: 3508
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

lizbethrose wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:WWIII,
You were able to survive your "decent into the maelstrom" and to emerge into what the MI (Mental Illness) professionals call a positive outcome. I have a dear friend who may not be so lucky. In support of your remembering psychotic events and ideas I can state that my friend does also. Best wishes for your continued success. You might want to see my thread or to read Torrey's "Surviving Schizophrenia". The latter covers all bases of questions asked and is a reputable guide for exploring the latest research, for explaining how parents and friend can deal with a shizophrenic and how one can advocate for better therapies for the mentally ill.

Thank you Ier, I think this may be your step 2.

WWIII, Ier and I have been corresponding through his thread about MI and the future of treatment. He started the thread because he was, at the time, against the use of drug therapy in dealing with mental illness. Obviously, I disagreed or we wouldn't have had a continued conversation.

I often shudder over the lack of understanding the majority of people have about mental illness--mental dysfunction. Pseudo science seems to have become the norm and pseudo science jargon is the language of the 'norm.' In my mind, this is a grave injustice to the mentally ill, especially those on Medicaid. But that's another thread.

As a functioning paranoid schizophrenic,imm, you're very much like the true alcoholic who stops drinking. No matter what you've done or how you've gone beyond your disease to reach equanimity, you're still schizophrenic and always will be. The same is true with the non-drinking alcoholic--s/he will always be an alcoholic. I really hope you can accept this. I'm sure you can, or you wouldn't have come so far.

BTW, marijuana use has been shown not to result in paranoid schizophrenia.

I am not a paranoid schizophrenic, I have been diagnosed with Schizo Affective disorder, Bi Polar II - Dually diagnosed.

Drugs causing the whole problem is not what occurs necessarily, but they do increase the severity of the symptoms.

WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher

Posts: 3508
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

I apologize, WWIII. But there's still enough of an overlap in the two diseases that I think you could be of help to Ier--if not in the open forum; at least in PMs. It wouldn't hurt to read his thread, at least.
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher

Posts: 3556
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

lizbethrose wrote:I apologize, WWIII. But there's still enough of an overlap in the two diseases that I think you could be of help to Ier--if not in the open forum; at least in PMs. It wouldn't hurt to read his thread, at least.

Yes there is. I did provide some advice in this thread up above a bit. I did read some of his writings in that thread also. I don't have much.. tactful sympathy for the diseased consciousness that is the mentally ill human at the time, in that I would advise strapping someone down and dosing them with meds if they refused to take them. It takes a few days for there to be some improvement typically. I recommend this for myself actually. If I was ever out of control and not taking meds, I would possibly need this to happen to me at times.

I know when I took out one of the mental health workers there at my first stay at the psych ward I know they did strap me down afterwords in a bed. I think they did give me medicine during that time? I don't remember. If they did, good...

WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher

Posts: 3508
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
lizbethrose wrote:I apologize, WWIII. But there's still enough of an overlap in the two diseases that I think you could be of help to Ier--if not in the open forum; at least in PMs. It wouldn't hurt to read his thread, at least.

Yes there is. I did provide some advice in this thread up above a bit. I did read some of his writings in that thread also. I don't have much.. tactful sympathy for the diseased consciousness that is the mentally ill human at the time, in that I would advise strapping someone down and dosing them with meds if they refused to take them. It takes a few days for there to be some improvement typically. I recommend this for myself actually. If I was ever out of control and not taking meds, I would possibly need this to happen to me at times.

I know when I took out one of the mental health workers there at my first stay at the psych ward I know they did strap me down afterwords in a bed. I think they did give me medicine during that time? I don't remember. If they did, good...

Thanks, WWIII. By "tactful sympathy", I take it you mean there's no excuse for not taking the meds needed to relieve symptoms. It's like trying to treat someone with obesity who doesn't follow the doc's recommended dietary guidelines--or someone with migraine who's been shown that their headaches are the result of certain food allergies--but who continue to eat those foods and then complain theyre still getting migraine, despite their meds.

I think there is a recovery stage wherein a schizoid personality realizes that what s/he sees isn't reality as other people see reality. But their perceived reality is most 'comfortable' for them, because it's something they can trust. I never thought that introducing such a personality to 'normal' activity could increase their distrust of anything other than their own reality. I guess that depends on the recovery stage. I'm not a doctor.

Anyway, I appreciate what you've written. I've learned from it, but not really "learned," if you understand that.
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher

Posts: 3556
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

lizbethrose wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
lizbethrose wrote:I apologize, WWIII. But there's still enough of an overlap in the two diseases that I think you could be of help to Ier--if not in the open forum; at least in PMs. It wouldn't hurt to read his thread, at least.

Yes there is. I did provide some advice in this thread up above a bit. I did read some of his writings in that thread also. I don't have much.. tactful sympathy for the diseased consciousness that is the mentally ill human at the time, in that I would advise strapping someone down and dosing them with meds if they refused to take them. It takes a few days for there to be some improvement typically. I recommend this for myself actually. If I was ever out of control and not taking meds, I would possibly need this to happen to me at times.

I know when I took out one of the mental health workers there at my first stay at the psych ward I know they did strap me down afterwords in a bed. I think they did give me medicine during that time? I don't remember. If they did, good...

Thanks, WWIII. By "tactful sympathy", I take it you mean there's no excuse for not taking the meds needed to relieve symptoms. It's like trying to treat someone with obesity who doesn't follow the doc's recommended dietary guidelines--or someone with migraine who's been shown that their headaches are the result of certain food allergies--but who continue to eat those foods and then complain theyre still getting migraine, despite their meds.

I think there is a recovery stage wherein a schizoid personality realizes that what s/he sees isn't reality as other people see reality. But their perceived reality is most 'comfortable' for them, because it's something they can trust. I never thought that introducing such a personality to 'normal' activity could increase their distrust of anything other than their own reality. I guess that depends on the recovery stage. I'm not a doctor.

Anyway, I appreciate what you've written. I've learned from it, but not really "learned," if you understand that.

Liz,
I think you are correct here about the meds. They are still the only available foundation of recovery.
WW III,
About tactful sympathy you have to realize when and when not this is effective. Torrey has much to say on forcing patients to take meds. I wish you would read him. In any event, if a patient shows a disposition toward harming self or others, is there no moral right for others to intervene? Do we not incarcerate criminals, taking away their rights and freedom because they are threats to a workable society? They could present a case of personal violation equal to that which could be given by MI sufferes who are forced to take meds. Your argument smacks of Orwell's ideas of Big Brother or some dominant power telling you that what they are doing is for your own good when it may not be. Without meds, nowadays, there is no recovery. I've learned that from personal experience with a schizophrinic. Sometimes force or bribery are the only tools left for challenging their self-destructive obsessions.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend

Posts: 12793
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

lizbethrose wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
lizbethrose wrote:I apologize, WWIII. But there's still enough of an overlap in the two diseases that I think you could be of help to Ier--if not in the open forum; at least in PMs. It wouldn't hurt to read his thread, at least.

Yes there is. I did provide some advice in this thread up above a bit. I did read some of his writings in that thread also. I don't have much.. tactful sympathy for the diseased consciousness that is the mentally ill human at the time, in that I would advise strapping someone down and dosing them with meds if they refused to take them. It takes a few days for there to be some improvement typically. I recommend this for myself actually. If I was ever out of control and not taking meds, I would possibly need this to happen to me at times.

I know when I took out one of the mental health workers there at my first stay at the psych ward I know they did strap me down afterwords in a bed. I think they did give me medicine during that time? I don't remember. If they did, good...

Thanks, WWIII. By "tactful sympathy", I take it you mean there's no excuse for not taking the meds needed to relieve symptoms. It's like trying to treat someone with obesity who doesn't follow the doc's recommended dietary guidelines--or someone with migraine who's been shown that their headaches are the result of certain food allergies--but who continue to eat those foods and then complain they`re still getting migraine, despite their meds.

I think there is a recovery stage wherein a schizoid personality realizes that what s/he sees isn't reality as other people see reality. But their perceived reality is most 'comfortable' for them, because it's something they can trust. I never thought that introducing such a personality to 'normal' activity could increase their distrust of anything other than their own reality. I guess that depends on the recovery stage. I'm not a doctor.
I
Anyway, I appreciate what you've written. I've learned from it, but not really "learned," if you understand that.

That would be nice if its the case, I could only tell you what I experienced though. There are those that take meds and those that don't, those that don't, need them before they kill themselves or others. Unless its mild of course. I'm talking about those who experience what I did, the severe psychosis.

WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher

Posts: 3508
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

Ierrellus wrote:I think you are correct here about the meds. They are still the only available foundation of recovery.
WW III,
About tactful sympathy you have to realize when and when not this is effective. Torrey has much to say on forcing patients to take meds. I wish you would read him. In any event, if a patient shows a disposition toward harming self or others, is there no moral right for others to intervene? Do we not incarcerate criminals, taking away their rights and freedom because they are threats to a workable society? They could present a case of personal violation equal to that which could be given by MI sufferes who are forced to take meds. Your argument smacks of Orwell's ideas of Big Brother or some dominant power telling you that what they are doing is for your own good when it may not be. Without meds, nowadays, there is no recovery. I've learned that from personal experience with a schizophrinic. Sometimes force or bribery are the only tools left for challenging their self-destructive obsessions.

Where's can I find Torrey's writings?

I understand the whole slippery slope of forcing meds to someone, I know mine is not a popular stance. I do know that when I was psychotic I refused meds, of course, why would I take them, when I'm psychotic. There's no reason to when there's no reasoning in my head. There's just the whim and pull of pyschosis, controlling my mind. I wasn't in control anymore, there is no control when logic and reason are void. I do know that I could've killed someone or myself very easily, hence my position. I'm not tolerant of the psychotic mind nor sympathetic, it is not the person within, the real person is a prisoner, hidden by this mental disease.

Of course when we're not sure if someone's psychotic or not, then they don't get the meds. Do you think we can be sure if someone is psychotic? I do. From there, is there any moral dilemma to force them medication? I don't think so. This is not telling the every day person what is good or not for them, this is bringing people to their true self, free from this disease in which they are unable to recognize what is good for them, because they can't, because they aren't there anymore, the disease is.

WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher

Posts: 3508
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

I've come across the approach of separating the "self" and the "disease" before. I can understand the usefulness for the patient in becoming able to separate the two. Though I don't think it's a necessarily philosophically sound approach.

The disease is still the self, though out of control and presumably exhibiting atypical behaviour. Without rational thought, there is no self-identification - so it can feel, in hindsight, that you have lost your self. But what I'm saying is that the self is not just the rational, self-aware part of the self.

We use phrases like "control yourself" for good reason: that which is controlled is the self also. It is the more primal fundamental part of the self, more a result of the inner 2 of the 3 layers of the triune brain. It is not only the cortex of the brain that is the self, this is merely the outer layer that only really has meaning relative to the layers underneath. This third layer has a lot to do with giving the self the ability to alter one's behaviour, and no doubt helps the self identify itself.

The self is also a word to do with how others identify you. They do this by gaining a picture of how you mostly are. "You are not yourself today" is somewhat inaccurate, but it is reflective of how others identify the self in others. You might be feeling more yourself that day, mostly feeling like a fake to others and thus having given them the impression that "that is you". If you were mostly impulsive and uncontrolled, you AND others could end up thinking of your "self" as being uncontrolled. We refer to the self in animals with much less self-control.

So the whole separation of "self" and "disease" only makes sense if the disease has had little to do with self-identification on your own part as well as others', AND if the self is necessarily the controlled, socially acceptable, self-identifying part of the self (which it is not). A very dubious, though effective way of helping patients.

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 4302
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

let us say your psychiatrist has decided that you have schizophrenia.....
do you want to be a schizophrenic or a person with schizophrenia......
turtle
ILP Legend

Posts: 8005
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:41 pm

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

Silhouette wrote:I've come across the approach of separating the "self" and the "disease" before. I can understand the usefulness for the patient in becoming able to separate the two. Though I don't think it's a necessarily philosophically sound approach.

The disease is still the self, though out of control and presumably exhibiting atypical behaviour. Without rational thought, there is no self-identification - so it can feel, in hindsight, that you have lost your self. But what I'm saying is that the self is not just the rational, self-aware part of the self.

We use phrases like "control yourself" for good reason: that which is controlled is the self also. It is the more primal fundamental part of the self, more a result of the inner 2 of the 3 layers of the triune brain. It is not only the cortex of the brain that is the self, this is merely the outer layer that only really has meaning relative to the layers underneath. This third layer has a lot to do with giving the self the ability to alter one's behaviour, and no doubt helps the self identify itself.

The self is also a word to do with how others identify you. They do this by gaining a picture of how you mostly are. "You are not yourself today" is somewhat inaccurate, but it is reflective of how others identify the self in others. You might be feeling more yourself that day, mostly feeling like a fake to others and thus having given them the impression that "that is you". If you were mostly impulsive and uncontrolled, you AND others could end up thinking of your "self" as being uncontrolled. We refer to the self in animals with much less self-control.

So the whole separation of "self" and "disease" only makes sense if the disease has had little to do with self-identification on your own part as well as others', AND if the self is necessarily the controlled, socially acceptable, self-identifying part of the self (which it is not). A very dubious, though effective way of helping patients.

You get the point yes.

WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher

Posts: 3508
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

Silhouette wrote:I've come across the approach of separating the "self" and the "disease" before. I can understand the usefulness for the patient in becoming able to separate the two. Though I don't think it's a necessarily philosophically sound approach.

The disease is still the self, though out of control and presumably exhibiting atypical behaviour. Without rational thought, there is no self-identification - so it can feel, in hindsight, that you have lost your self. But what I'm saying is that the self is not just the rational, self-aware part of the self.

We use phrases like "control yourself" for good reason: that which is controlled is the self also. It is the more primal fundamental part of the self, more a result of the inner 2 of the 3 layers of the triune brain. It is not only the cortex of the brain that is the self, this is merely the outer layer that only really has meaning relative to the layers underneath. This third layer has a lot to do with giving the self the ability to alter one's behaviour, and no doubt helps the self identify itself.

The self is also a word to do with how others identify you. They do this by gaining a picture of how you mostly are. "You are not yourself today" is somewhat inaccurate, but it is reflective of how others identify the self in others. You might be feeling more yourself that day, mostly feeling like a fake to others and thus having given them the impression that "that is you". If you were mostly impulsive and uncontrolled, you AND others could end up thinking of your "self" as being uncontrolled. We refer to the self in animals with much less self-control.

So the whole separation of "self" and "disease" only makes sense if the disease has had little to do with self-identification on your own part as well as others', AND if the self is necessarily the controlled, socially acceptable, self-identifying part of the self (which it is not). A very dubious, though effective way of helping patients.
Great, agree all the way through. And of course this kind of problematic disidenfication takes place in 'normal' people who view a wide variety of portions of themselves as alien intrusions and not them. Much of it they try not to notice or suppress or forget or rationalize. Of course we get trained to do this, regardless of background.
Last edited by Moreno on Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Moreno
ILP Legend

Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

turtle wrote:let us say your psychiatrist has decided that you have schizophrenia.....
do you want to be a schizophrenic or a person with schizophrenia......
Schizophrenia is a pattern involving the emotions and thoughts. If my emotions and thoughts are not me and my body has this 'mental illness' I seem to be backed into a rather non-existent corner to find my identity. Buddists and psychosynthesists might get even 'normal' people to disidentify with all these passing forms - thoughts, emotions, bodily sensations, etc. But for most people their sense of who they are has to do with emotions and thoughts - and relationships and possessions and jobs. The first three are different with the pattern labeled schizophrenia, but then that's what you have to work with. Those thoughts and emotions and relationships are not someone else's. They also exist. If you are going to build an identity on such things, well......

If not, fine.

But then you are building an identity differently than other people do. Which pretty much messes up the intention saying those things are not you.

Moreno
ILP Legend

Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

May I say a little of this about a little of that?

An irrational mind is, guess what--irrational, of course! There's really no way for a rational mind to deal with an irrational mind without considerable training in how an irrational mind works. I have no real understanding of the irrational mind; but, because of various personal experiences--including those that involved myself --my "self"--I have a great deal of empathy and sympathy for the irrational mind.

I would like to see 'irrational' minds treated as if they were diabetics--no, obviously not given test strips or insulin at reduced cost, but as having an equally debilitating disease. Many times and in some states, this can be possible. At the same time, in this era of budget cutting, what gets cut, among so many other things, is assistance to the mentally ill.

The choice seems to come down to, which human life has the most value to the 'whole' of society? Who is to judge?

I'm glad you escaped that cut, WWIII.
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher

Posts: 3556
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:I think you are correct here about the meds. They are still the only available foundation of recovery.
WW III,
About tactful sympathy you have to realize when and when not this is effective. Torrey has much to say on forcing patients to take meds. I wish you would read him. In any event, if a patient shows a disposition toward harming self or others, is there no moral right for others to intervene? Do we not incarcerate criminals, taking away their rights and freedom because they are threats to a workable society? They could present a case of personal violation equal to that which could be given by MI sufferes who are forced to take meds. Your argument smacks of Orwell's ideas of Big Brother or some dominant power telling you that what they are doing is for your own good when it may not be. Without meds, nowadays, there is no recovery. I've learned that from personal experience with a schizophrinic. Sometimes force or bribery are the only tools left for challenging their self-destructive obsessions.

Where's can I find Torrey's writings?

I understand the whole slippery slope of forcing meds to someone, I know mine is not a popular stance. I do know that when I was psychotic I refused meds, of course, why would I take them, when I'm psychotic. There's no reason to when there's no reasoning in my head. There's just the whim and pull of pyschosis, controlling my mind. I wasn't in control anymore, there is no control when logic and reason are void. I do know that I could've killed someone or myself very easily, hence my position. I'm not tolerant of the psychotic mind nor sympathetic, it is not the person within, the real person is a prisoner, hidden by this mental disease.

Of course when we're not sure if someone's psychotic or not, then they don't get the meds. Do you think we can be sure if someone is psychotic? I do. From there, is there any moral dilemma to force them medication? I don't think so. This is not telling the every day person what is good or not for them, this is bringing people to their true self, free from this disease in which they are unable to recognize what is good for them, because they can't, because they aren't there anymore, the disease is.

E. FullerTorrey is probably the foremost expert today on schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. His book "Surviving Schizophrenia" can be found in about any local library. I would ask of you how you became "rational" enough to communicate with us here. Your descriptions of irrational happenings are rational and understandable. My friend J. still has not gotten that far. Typical statements of hers are "They pulled out my brains in threads. My mother ate them. My children were crucified." She cannot operate a microwave or set a clock. So how did you get from there to here? It wasn't by pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. Most MI sufferers have no boots! It had to begin by basic med stabilization.
Last edited by Ierrellus on Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend

Posts: 12793
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

turtle wrote:let us say your psychiatrist has decided that you have schizophrenia.....
do you want to be a schizophrenic or a person with schizophrenia......

"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend

Posts: 12793
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

lizbethrose wrote:May I say a little of this about a little of that?

An irrational mind is, guess what--irrational, of course! There's really no way for a rational mind to deal with an irrational mind without considerable training in how an irrational mind works. I have no real understanding of the irrational mind; but, because of various personal experiences--including those that involved myself --my "self"--I have a great deal of empathy and sympathy for the irrational mind.

I would like to see 'irrational' minds treated as if they were diabetics--no, obviously not given test strips or insulin at reduced cost, but as having an equally debilitating disease. Many times and in some states, this can be possible. At the same time, in this era of budget cutting, what gets cut, among so many other things, is assistance to the mentally ill.

The choice seems to come down to, which human life has the most value to the 'whole' of society? Who is to judge?

I'm glad you escaped that cut, WWIII.

An irrational mind doesn't work, There is no methodology, anything can trigger anything, dealing with it isn't good, isolating it is.

As for me, I would give my loved ones permission to medicate me by force if I ever went off the deep end again. As for those I love, if it ever happened to them, I would do it by force if I could, with or without legal permission. For the rest of the world... good luck :/

WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher

Posts: 3508
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

Ierrellus wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:I think you are correct here about the meds. They are still the only available foundation of recovery.
WW III,
About tactful sympathy you have to realize when and when not this is effective. Torrey has much to say on forcing patients to take meds. I wish you would read him. In any event, if a patient shows a disposition toward harming self or others, is there no moral right for others to intervene? Do we not incarcerate criminals, taking away their rights and freedom because they are threats to a workable society? They could present a case of personal violation equal to that which could be given by MI sufferes who are forced to take meds. Your argument smacks of Orwell's ideas of Big Brother or some dominant power telling you that what they are doing is for your own good when it may not be. Without meds, nowadays, there is no recovery. I've learned that from personal experience with a schizophrinic. Sometimes force or bribery are the only tools left for challenging their self-destructive obsessions.

Where's can I find Torrey's writings?

I understand the whole slippery slope of forcing meds to someone, I know mine is not a popular stance. I do know that when I was psychotic I refused meds, of course, why would I take them, when I'm psychotic. There's no reason to when there's no reasoning in my head. There's just the whim and pull of pyschosis, controlling my mind. I wasn't in control anymore, there is no control when logic and reason are void. I do know that I could've killed someone or myself very easily, hence my position. I'm not tolerant of the psychotic mind nor sympathetic, it is not the person within, the real person is a prisoner, hidden by this mental disease.

Of course when we're not sure if someone's psychotic or not, then they don't get the meds. Do you think we can be sure if someone is psychotic? I do. From there, is there any moral dilemma to force them medication? I don't think so. This is not telling the every day person what is good or not for them, this is bringing people to their true self, free from this disease in which they are unable to recognize what is good for them, because they can't, because they aren't there anymore, the disease is.

E. FullerTorrey is probably the foremost expert today on schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. His book "Surviving Schizophrenia" can be found in about any local library. I would ask of you how you became "rational" enough to communicate with us here. Your descriptions of irrational happenings are rational and understandable. My friend J. still has not gotten that far. Typical statements of hers are "They pulled out my brains in threads. My mother ate them. My children were crucified." She cannot operate a microwave or set a clock. So how did you get from there to here? It wasn't by pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. Most MI sufferers have no boots! It had to begin by basic med stabilization.

I was never low functioning. I could communicate with you at my peak of psychosis, although what I would say would be that of a mad man, I was always able to communicate. I wouldn't be stating stuff like "they pulled out my brains in threads". I always made sense at least, being that if you consider I had the self image of God or the antichrist into what I was stating.

Basic med stabilization, from there constant introspection and reflection.

WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher

Posts: 3508
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

Moreno wrote:
turtle wrote:let us say your psychiatrist has decided that you have schizophrenia.....
do you want to be a schizophrenic or a person with schizophrenia......
Schizophrenia is a pattern involving the emotions and thoughts. If my emotions and thoughts are not me and my body has this 'mental illness' I seem to be backed into a rather non-existent corner to find my identity. Buddists and psychosynthesists might get even 'normal' people to disidentify with all these passing forms - thoughts, emotions, bodily sensations, etc. But for most people their sense of who they are has to do with emotions and thoughts - and relationships and possessions and jobs. The first three are different with the pattern labeled schizophrenia, but then that's what you have to work with. Those thoughts and emotions and relationships are not someone else's. They also exist. If you are going to build an identity on such things, well......

If not, fine.

But then you are building an identity differently than other people do. Which pretty much messes up the intention saying those things are not you.

I'm certain you wouldn't be stating this if your awareness of your free will and choice were eliminated and controlled. Shizophrenics used to be seen as possessed by demons. You have no control over what you do or think in the situation I described. Stating or thinking, well its still the same person (obviously) doesn't counter my point, or Turtle's point, because it doesn't attack the point.

WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher

Posts: 3508
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

Ierrellus wrote:My friend J. still has not gotten that far. Typical statements of hers are "They pulled out my brains in threads. My mother ate them. My children were crucified."

Mightn't these just be cryptic metaphors?

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:An irrational mind doesn't work,

Are you sure it doesn't work on a rational level that you and most others cannot "translate" (despite even the ill person not being able to translate themselves)?

The regular rational mind has been understood in terms of other rational minds for ages now, we have long been rationalising the way these normal minds work in light of shared values, such as controlledness and self-awareness - particularly applied to standardised communicability. So much that we see one another as potentially very rational relative to one another, we control our behaviour in socially acceptable ways and are aware of all this - the mentally ill do/are not. But this is not enough to say they are utterly irrational.

Hypothetically, if an alien were to come across our ways, it might think us utterly irrational if it could make no sense of our language content and structure (which is very arbitrary and specific to our species) and we might come across as completely uncontrolled depending on how the alien saw us and compared us with its own kind.

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:As for me, I would give my loved ones permission to medicate me by force if I ever went off the deep end again. As for those I love, if it ever happened to them, I would do it by force if I could, with or without legal permission. For the rest of the world... good luck :/

If I may point out, you have a significant intolerance of the mentally ill - I'm picking up a lot of guilt and perhaps (remnants of former?) self-hate. It may be a very justified, tried and tested stance, and perhaps the only effective stance. Though perhaps it is not and you are letting your feelings get in the way of doing what is best for the mentally ill?

Silhouette
Philosopher

Posts: 4302
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

Silhouette wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:My friend J. still has not gotten that far. Typical statements of hers are "They pulled out my brains in threads. My mother ate them. My children were crucified."

Mightn't these just be cryptic metaphors?

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:An irrational mind doesn't work,

Are you sure it doesn't work on a rational level that you and most others cannot "translate" (despite even the ill person not being able to translate themselves)?

The regular rational mind has been understood in terms of other rational minds for ages now, we have long been rationalising the way these normal minds work in light of shared values, such as controlledness and self-awareness - particularly applied to standardised communicability. So much that we see one another as potentially very rational relative to one another, we control our behaviour in socially acceptable ways and are aware of all this - the mentally ill do/are not. But this is not enough to say they are utterly irrational.

Hypothetically, if an alien were to come across our ways, it might think us utterly irrational if it could make no sense of our language content and structure (which is very arbitrary and specific to our species) and we might come across as completely uncontrolled depending on how the alien saw us and compared us with its own kind.

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:As for me, I would give my loved ones permission to medicate me by force if I ever went off the deep end again. As for those I love, if it ever happened to them, I would do it by force if I could, with or without legal permission. For the rest of the world... good luck :/

There's no predictability, no method, in irrationality. There is no translation in illogical thought, there is possible subconscious things at work that one can interpret to be a logical reaction to something in the subconscious mind going on, but that isn't important nor is it pertinent in the psychotic mind here and now and to anyone who would be dealing with one. I believe we already had this conversation before as well, you seem to want to find consistency in irrationality, that is not the case. When it is the case, it is a rational deduction (even if the end result may be described as irrational)- dependent upon the reason.
Silhouette wrote:If I may point out, you have a significant intolerance of the mentally ill - I'm picking up a lot of guilt and perhaps (remnants of former?) self-hate. It may be a very justified, tried and tested stance, and perhaps the only effective stance. Though perhaps it is not and you are letting your feelings get in the way of doing what is best for the mentally ill?

Not self hate at all, not hate for the mentally ill. I am not intolerant of the mentally ill, just the mental illness itself. It is crippling and binding and dominating. The mentally ill typically do not want help. I do think its not best for them to not help them, would you agree? If we let the mentally ill do what they want that's best for themselves, could you imagine the world we'd live in? Persuasion may work, not always. Aside from that, what else have we got, when persuasion fails? Further failed persuasion until its too late? This is not out of self hating, just out of a keen awareness of just how dangerous it is for someone to be psychotic as I was. I don't know how to make it much more clearer that someone who is pyschotic could kill himself or others at any time for any reason, for no reason at all. Most murders you get are from psychotic, mentally ill.. We typically just view them as no good criminals. I see them as out of control... damaged minds.

WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher

Posts: 3508
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:I'm certain you wouldn't be stating this if your awareness of your free will and choice were eliminated and controlled. Shizophrenics used to be seen as possessed by demons. You have no control over what you do or think in the situation I described. Stating or thinking, well its still the same person (obviously) doesn't counter my point, or Turtle's point, because it doesn't attack the point.
I wasn't responding to your point, whichever one it was, so I am not surprised it does not counter or attack it. I do think it was a direct response to turtle's point. I can't say I wanted to attack it. I disagree with his point and I think it is problematic for the points that I raised. The point you are raising here is not something that just schizophrenics deal with at all or even all people who get that diagnosis. Ask anyone to to try meditation for the first time and their thoughts will be out of their control, intrusive, unstoppable, seemingly other. Of course they do not, generally, experience the kinds of emotional agony that many people with that diagnosis do, but as far as identity issues in a philosophical context I think there is a problem saying 'that is not me, but my disease', unless we are all suffering from diseases with Schizophrenics simply being on the far end in terms of suffering. If you think the content of the thoughts is the issue, Thomas Szasz has written numerous books pointing out that outlandish beliefs do not make a disease. You can go out and believe you are eating the body of God and drink his blood and you will not get diagnosed. The same control issues are also involved for 'normal' people as far as emotions go. Most people have trouble controlling their emotions - and even then, when they do, the emotions are reacting and then are controlled. The actual reactions are not something the people can control and they often deal with their emotions, with varying degrees of consciousness as something not in control.

If we want to call 'normal' people's thinking and emotions a mild disease and not them, ok, that is consistent, but I think there is a problem saying that only in one case.

'Normal' people also self-medicate and I do not limit this to drugs or legal drugs, but they also have varying degrees of success eliminating symptoms via tricks, mind alterning substances and activities, self talk, distraction and workaholicism....and many other strategies. I don't think if, for example, workaholics, are effective at not feeling their anxiety about intimacy with their spouses, this anxiety is not really them or part of who they are.

Moreno
ILP Legend

Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

### Re: My 1st Hand experience of Psychosis

Moreno wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:I'm certain you wouldn't be stating this if your awareness of your free will and choice were eliminated and controlled. Shizophrenics used to be seen as possessed by demons. You have no control over what you do or think in the situation I described. Stating or thinking, well its still the same person (obviously) doesn't counter my point, or Turtle's point, because it doesn't attack the point.
I wasn't responding to your point, whichever one it was, so I am not surprised it does not counter or attack it. I do think it was a direct response to turtle's point. I can't say I wanted to attack it. I disagree with his point and I think it is problematic for the points that I raised. The point you are raising here is not something that just schizophrenics deal with at all or even all people who get that diagnosis. Ask anyone to to try meditation for the first time and their thoughts will be out of their control, intrusive, unstoppable, seemingly other. Of course they do not, generally, experience the kinds of emotional agony that many people with that diagnosis do, but as far as identity issues in a philosophical context I think there is a problem saying 'that is not me, but my disease', unless we are all suffering from diseases with Schizophrenics simply being on the far end in terms of suffering. If you think the content of the thoughts is the issue, Thomas Szasz has written numerous books pointing out that outlandish beliefs do not make a disease. You can go out and believe you are eating the body of God and drink his blood and you will not get diagnosed. The same control issues are also involved for 'normal' people as far as emotions go. Most people have trouble controlling their emotions - and even then, when they do, the emotions are reacting and then are controlled. The actual reactions are not something the people can control and they often deal with their emotions, with varying degrees of consciousness as something not in control.

If we want to call 'normal' people's thinking and emotions a mild disease and not them, ok, that is consistent, but I think there is a problem saying that only in one case.

'Normal' people also self-medicate and I do not limit this to drugs or legal drugs, but they also have varying degrees of success eliminating symptoms via tricks, mind alterning substances and activities, self talk, distraction and workaholicism....and many other strategies. I don't think if, for example, workaholics, are effective at not feeling their anxiety about intimacy with their spouses, this anxiety is not really them or part of who they are.

If a doctor prods your brain to make your arm move, did you move your arm or did the doctor move your arm?

WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher

Posts: 3508
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

PreviousNext