Although both of my psychoses had elements that were rather ludicrous, I definitely feel that it has been worth my time to analyze them and get to the reasons why I wanted to believe in my delusions. First psychosis had an unusual paranormal element and grandiosity and thought-broadcasting, the second did not, but they were both a matter of me wanting things in my life to change, and going to the magical element of believing that x or y was the solution to all of my problems. Wishful thinking taken to the point of insanity, with my mind creating things for me to make it seem real. Also, in both psychoses, my core delusions absolved me of responsibility for my social and psychological problems. I still find myself wanting to believe things that are likely not true, and have to toss out the poppycock often. My hope is that understanding why I get into that will help me recognise when Iâm starting up, and keep it in check.
I donât believe I am God or Jesus, or the Blessed Mother, or even a Saint. But, I do receive messages from God on a daily basis. Sometimes on a twice daily basis or more. Now, I donât know if this is a delusion or not, but, all I know is that it has been happening for years and years. Every day. Ever since I became confirmed a Catholic. It has resulted in amazing fruits in my life. I have gone from being a terrible, habitual sinner to being a chaste, celibate, woman who is a good Catholic and tries to avoid sin as best as I can. For the most part, I attend mass daily now. Before, I hadnât attended a church service in 23 years! Even my mother believes in me. My pdoc and nurses donât know what to think. I post on this site, not because of my communicationâs with God, necessarily, but because of other sza symptoms that I have.
For those that are happy to sit in the materialist box - fill your boots - i wonât be joining you thanks.
I donât know why but I can for sure say my âdelusional thinkingâ is centered around the government, God, & the devil. would be nice to know why.
A lot of us surely were. I was raised Pentecostal. I had a head full of impossible moralistic perfectionism hooked up to âmysterious spiritual beings.â Took me several years of insight and cognitive therapy to make enough sense of all the programming to slice through the⌠delusions.
I always follow the money now. If the research points to some simple pharmaceutical solution, Iâm especially wary. That said, I donât dismiss the findings out of hand.
Probably the biggest gift I got from DBT was the ability to tolerate ambiguities and conflicts until they are finally resolved with empirical proof or disproof⌠if they ever are resolved. I can even tolerate not knowing forever now.
Likewise right here between my ears (on a âbadâ day). My non-delusional thinking is anything but, though it took a lot of effort to get here. I had to do a lot of CBT and REBT.
and
Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy: History, ABCDE Model, and More.
Very much at the risk of setting off a useless tailspin, Iâm wondering if you can answer in less than 50 words what box you (think you) are sitting in. 
(Someone slap some sense in to me, quick.)
a delusion is when you queue for a bus 
âŚwhen there is no bus stop 
âŚ!?!..what the !!!
take care 
Not the materialist one.
I liked this statement - that sort of refers to this issue:
Demian Rose, MD, PhD, a previously regular contributor here adds:
"In my view, biology and psychology arenât just interacting phenomena, they are in fact different levels of analysis of the same phenomena. In other words, the âstuffâ is the same in each case (call it mind, or social organism, etc.), but it can be looked at from the very small (e.g., GABA-ergic neurotransmitters) to the very large (e.g., social trends in developing countries). As you go âupwardsâ in complexity, you generally gain perspective and utility, but lose specificity.
and
Recently a psychiatrist touched upon the general issue of âbiology or psychologyâ in his blog âCorpus Collosumâ - and if youâre interested in this topic, I recommend you read the full story. Following is a brief quote:
About one year ago, I was leading a seminar with some PhD students in clinical psychology. In the course of discussing something else, I mentioned, for historical context, the idea that people had thought at one point that there was a clear distinction between biological and psychological problems. A student chimed in: âBut nobody really believes that any more, do they?â
Hmmm. I am sure some people do. What is more, it is a paradigm that might be useful for them. As they say, âall models are false; some are useful.â Personally, I have found it to be useful only in a very limited sense. âŚ
A good example of the lack of a clear distinction between psychological and biological processes is found in a recent presentation on the effects of childbirth. Childbirth is obviously a biological process for women. The psychological and anatomical changes are rather obvious. It is much less obvious, however, that there are biological changes that accompany fatherhood. Therefore, it might be tempting to think of fatherhood as a time of psychological transition, rather that a time of biological change.
However, this is not something that one can discern merely by thinking about it. You have to do the study to learn the truth of the matter. And when you study the neurophysiology of new fathers, you do find that there are changes.
Is it really surprising that a personâs physiology changes in response to oneâs social environment?
source:
It seems to me beyond doubt that the biological level enables what happens at the psychological level. It is questionable wether a relation of enabling comes down to a relation of identity, such that we can say the phenomena at the two levels are really the same âstuffâ. It is uncontroversial that identity entails shared properties. That includes spatiotemporal properties. But it is questionable whether one can specify such identity criteria for what we could loosely call âmental stuffâ. I.e., reasons, beliefs, thoughts, etc. Their spatio-temporal properties are vague, to say the least - when does a thought start? where is the thought located? How big is a thought? these are questions that seem not easy to answer for mental phenomena, while they perfectly make sense for brain phenomena. Hence it is difficult to truly identify them with brain states which do have clear spatiotemporal identity criteria. One set of criteria could be to look at brain activity and identify the duration and location of them, and demarcate the correlated reported mental phenomena on that basis - yet this would be assuming the consequent. So this goes to show that indeed
Although I would argue that some models arenât even intelligible.
& so from the materialist paradigm everything is reduced to physiology. How about itâs the other way around in a lot of ways that the primary mechanism is psychogenic? That consciousness is primary. & if that is the actual case, which i think the actual evidence shows - then what of this materialistic âscienceâ (in relation to the self/consciousness)- it would be seen largely as a nonsense - which much of it is (imo).
Still with the âmaterialistâ mantra.
The reason that we sit with a roof over our heads , put a man on the moon , puts incredible processing power into the shape of computing devices is because people choose to study the natural world , and found what they did just works and works consistently.
Yes, wonderful - Does that then mean that materialism answers the questions as to the nature of the self, consciousness & reality? Your free to believe it does if thatâs what floats your boat.
Its you that are asking the questions , me personally I couldnât be arsed.
Just challenging people - i have the answers thanks.
Incidentally we did have houses (& many other things) before the scientific revolution - in case you werenât aware.
Yeah we had gravity bro . Its the reason that one block goes on top of another.
Yea, Gravity, another force that materialistic science fully understands & has mastered. lol
iâm Not bedazzled by the pitiful arrogance of where humanity currently stands - thatâs the difference.
We donât need to âmasterâ it we can âmeasureâ it and thatâs just fine.