So here is this unusual idea about antischizophrenia occuring again. This topic is not really based on a past delusion but like any idea that is not conventional it could be delusional. When I was offmeds I was in contact with health professionals and noticed certain behaviors that I’ll call antischizophrenia. In some cases there eas excessive facial expressions, overly positive and friendly demeanor, complete expectation of trust, cartoonish rational decision making and other traits. This was annoying to me in my disordered state as having some insight I thought this is an exaggerated presentation of normalcy in opposition to sz.
Regarding Foucault’s thesis that corrections and health institutions could have an effect on broader society, I wonder if antisz could be detrimental. While sz is a serious disorder there is certain qualities of sz such as being alone or individual, trusting your own subjectivity even in cases where there should be extreme doubt, being paranoid of others and organizations, and other qualities that can be seen as positive if not in a state of complete disorder.
While most people dont have a good understanding of sz to be intentionally or contrary to sz the pervasiveness of health and corrections in institutions could create a sort of psychiatric institutionalization of society. In short antisz is the kind of idea a health functionary would not be expected to have.
Sorry but i have to be blunt. But im detecting a bit of word salad going on. Are you thinking clearly? Are you taking your meds?
Never heard of anti-schizophrenia. Sure your not over anaylising a bit too much of your symptoms? If this is your way of coping - and venting on here carry on. But to be honest your really not making much sense mate x
I love the way you think. This is really a unique outlook. I think I understand. I’ve also had some problem with health professionals and what’s considered normalcy. And their need to differentiate and extinguish in some way neurodiversity. And its all so legalised and so deemed necessary. It makes me think of totalitarian ways of thinking. Reading Hannah Arendt had me rethink normalcy.
my dad says my brother Ronnie doesn’t have a brain,
but he’s no diagnosis.
He does talk out loud to himself though, like me.
you gotta have more serious symptoms than that to be called disabled.
Thanks. I notice you have a sort of introverted preoccupation with ideas too. Which is sort of opposed to the social dimension of personality, although you do cite authors fairly often which does indicate you are not totally withdrawn as I have been in the past only trying to draw on irrationalist modes of thought. That you mention totalitarianism confirms that the intent of my post is not lost. I like reading your posts aswell.
I agree with the first couple lines of your post but the concluding remark I find ironic due to my understanding of ultraconservatism being opposed to the individuslist nature of sz although the objectivist argument positions it as against reason. There are some currents of sz theme in conservative movements today but i consider that part of a temporary phenomenon and would not be part of an ultraconservative regime.
Im not sure symptoms have to be so visible before you are considered disabled. A person can have a host of negatives but just seem lazy which would instead invoke a punishment by society. There should be universal basic income for everyone period.
I have experienced mutism as a child and adult. Experienced extreme levels of isolation and coped. Also called an introvert but could be an introverted extravert or vice versa. I think that having been sectioned so often and medicated so horrendously by medical professionals has altered how I can communicate and dare I say think at a high level - I say this as I recieved straight distinctions at degree level. Yet, I now struggle quite severely or have done to a greater degree in the past. I reference books as being sectioned in isolation for 6months. The longest sectioning 2yr and 4months. I read at times. But particularly as I needed/need to sort through my delusions, hallucinations, psychosis experiences. Which were particularly disturbing to say the least. I don’t go into my thoughts here as I find it too personal and triggering. But thank-you I gleam alot from your writings. And your independence of thought I admire.
Also i’ve known people who are considered illiterate but are introverts asin inward predominately focused, travellers. I also think that literary doesnt necessarily equate to a freedom of mind. As that can be expressed in many forms. Take for example a ex military personnel walking through the streets of Russia with an anti war slogan written in the Ukraniane language across his chest.
Maybe I throw around introvert too much, I’ve experimented with intrasubjective as opposed to intersubjective. To me that would not ‘psychologize’ a person the same way, so I didn’t mean to do that. Medical treatments have reduced my ability to think, and one reason I came to this forum was to try to write some things rather than just have the ephemeral thoughts that occur to me throughout the day.
I say all this as I was completely impressed by a man illiterate whom had an eidetic memory and part of his travellor tradition was to inherit the aural tradition and pass knowledge on through song, riddles, rhymes, poetry etc. But was a free mind.
yes, I don’t think reading a lot is necessary to cultivate a ‘mind’. There are things like intuition, emotion, imagination that can be called upon even without training to think freely. I was critical of writing citations in papers at school, because I didn’t want to write an idea that I was forming out of a social consensus I was putting together, but through faculties of mind that I wanted to use.
The basic idea is that some of the dystopic elements of psychiatric institutionalization could find their way into other social institutions due to the overbearing power of health and corrections. Someone working in those institutions works as a team, isn’t critical of the practices of the institution and sees and treats a symptomatic person as powerless. Those are three points, the first two demonstrate a lack of individual agency but the third is the most worrisome where ‘symptom’ is a potential complex of individual traits that could be open to sanctioning. So the very actions of an individual who is technically not sick with sz in a dystopic situation whether in education, work, or even portrayed in the media could be subject to a culture of psychiatric controls.
