Part of me accepts the SZ diagnosis, but probably I'm deluded

My idea of an unusual belief is someone convinced they suffer from SZ. After all, why should someone with such good insight be deemed mad? I admit to holding this unusual belief from time to time, fuelled in turn by the underlying belief that a homeopathic dose of crazy keeps us from becoming crazy. Am I crazy to believe I am a little bit crazy? If I admit being crazier than I am, will I be proving that I’m saner than I think I am? I no longer know who owns my thoughts, which I guess is due to depersonalisation, and I’m fairly convinced that solipsism holds true, at least in my case. But it remains hard to accept my diagnosis knowing that only under 40% of my peers believe that I’m psychotic, and that I don’t suffer from paranoia, voices, fully-fledged delusions, catatonia or disorganised symptoms.

It must be hard for you. It’s hard for me and I’ve had objects say my name to me. It’s not an easy thing to believe. Why would it be?

1 Like

If you recognise other people’s cases then surely this disproves solipsism?

Is obsessional solipsism a fully fledged delusion?

How can 40% of your peers who happen to be sz, when peers are the the same people as you be any measure of psychosis?

That is why psychosis spectrum disorder is a preferable status as fully fledged sz suffers from paranoia, voices, fully fledged delusions, catatonia, disorganised symptoms and self neglect. If you suffer from one on the spectrum, it is not so bad as the stigma of sz, is it?

1 Like

Other people are just me experiencing a different set of circumstances and in ‘living’ in different time frames, but brought together under an universal illusion of simultaneity. My model combines solipsism with classical occasionalism.

I don’t think so. Obsession with solipsism is fairly typical in existential OCD sufferers and in DP disorder.

But I don’t really suffer from any of those.

1 Like

Why can’t my timelines cross with your time frames in this paradox? In the infinity of the multiverse surely that must happen? Surely, you only realise one life at a time and you cross multiple timelines in the course of that depending one the action you take. As I do in mine.

Then why does part of you accept the sz diagnosis?

We are the same person so that would be a logical paradox. Time is just a figure of speech, it’s not real.

I guess the socially deluded one, but there is no way to be certain.

An enlightened person would tell you that also, but I always thought it was an atomic thing with our ‘skin bag’ being a human construct that most of us find ourselves trapped in.

Interesting that the dissolution of the self (I) could become we, rather than you and I. Are you certain that it is all you and that I am just a version of yourself? Is it not just we?

Can I not be dominant in my timeline, because surely I am?

I and we are the same, there is only one ‘person’, whether ‘individual’ or ‘collective’. Personhood is an illusion; as you eloquently put it, “a human construct that most of us find ourselves trapped in”. Existence in this realm is an imposition.
And now I ask you: these ideas I’ve just shared are the craziest I ever get. No nuttier than some religions. Do I sound psychotic to you, or simply curious about existence?

Not to me, however good luck explaining that to a psychiatrist in his 20 minutes slot! :grinning:

1 Like

So which one is it? You believe I’'ve been misdiagnosed, or are you questioning the SZ label in principle? Do you believe they will believe I’m crazy?

They’ll believe you are crazy imho. I wouldn’t even bother starting on it. I would try to actually function in a way that proves to them you are not.

This means functioning in mainstream society in the way they want. As uncomfortable as it is, if the sz diagnosis means so much to you then that is what I would do.

If you don’t want to work then at least write a book or something.

I no longer know what to believe. Nothing feels real, everyone might be dead. Maybe that’s why I’m so drawn to ghost stories, they show the world precisely as I see it.

[quote=“labratmat, post:11, topic:216099”]
They’ll believe you are crazy imho. I wouldn’t even bother starting on it. I would try to actually function in a way that proves to them you are not.
[/quote] :

I appreciate the honesty. . I’ll be mad, but on my own terms. :upside_down_face:

To be fair to psychiatrists I hardly function at all, or maybe I’m just lazy, but I’m not sure I can fake being functional, but I never cared about that bullcrap. Thank you my friend :slight_smile:

1 Like

You are actually delving on the subject of enlightenment and explaining that to an unenlightened person is pointless.

What I find sad is that the peace that accompanies it like for Tolle and Watts hasn’t occurred to you due to the ocd possibly.

1 Like
1 Like

New age philosophy believes all there is is god; one mind. So I think you just believe in new age beliefs like those Donald Walsch attests too. I know that people who ascribe to religions aren’t crazy for example believing Moses parted the Red Sea according to the DSM; it’s part of the social context.

New age ideas

Those beliefs -most of which I don’t subscribe to- precede New Age philosophy by thousands of years. But I don’t want to get too involved discussing delusional sounding beliefs. Anyway, my ‘healthy’ self is a staunch atheist, materialist, scientific sceptic and transhumanist. Please don’t try to associate me with new age malarkey. Thanks.

You can’t Be a materialist and believe solipsism because solipsism denies materialism.

As I said, “my healthy self”. There is a couple of people inside me, but that’s not uncommon even among normies.