What is recovery?

Continuing the discussion from People, Places, and Things:

Any more liberal definitions of recovery? What does it mean to you?

1 Like

do we need to have done all four of these things to be deemed to be recovered or just one?

its just that i have been in part time education for the last 2 years and independently living for nearly 2 years and i dont see a cpn much anymore and they are thinking about discharging me to my gp.

i haven’t got many friends tho.

I think they say all four. http://www.currentpsychiatry.com/fileadmin/cp_archive/pdf/0705/0705CP_Article2.pdf . Page 3 discusses maintenance v recovery. I think they are quite high hurdles to jump over .

I think others might say you’re on the recovery path.

I have expressed my feelings on recovery from schizophrenia before. There are some schizophrenics who believe themselves to be in full recovery. They are doing what many non SZ people are doing - working, socializing, going to school, maintaining some form of balance. Recovery means that the disease or illness or sick condition or symptoms have completely and totally disappeared, you are back to baseline or normal functioning. Schizophrenia is a lifelong chronic brain disorder - it is always there - no matter how good you feel, you still have the illness thus you are never in recovery. You may be functioning better or feeling better, this does not mean recovery. Pneumonia patients recover, they had the sickness now they dont. Schizophrenia is a chronic fluctuating type illness - stress, drugs, abuse, hardship will set a schizophrenic back to instability and destabilization in minutes. There is no recovery when it comes to schizophrenia, there is only stability and this is not always permanent


I don’t really consider myself in Recovery. I think of it as remission. According to the list, I would be considered in recovery. I do live in my own place, I do have a job and am starting school, I do get out to my SZ group and I have a friend, I have health insurance through my job.

But man, I still have the voices, I still have the paranoia and panic attacks, I still have the hallucinations, I still have disorganized thinking. My head circus can still put on quite a show. I still have slides in to no motivation and a true inability to pull out of some pretty deep apathy at times.

With out the meds, I wouldn’t have the job, hence my own place or the insurance. So if I can do this without meds, then I might call myself recovered. But for now, I still call it remission. Sort of like Cancer.


Good question. From my own perspective of addiction recovery, it’s been 1-12 years depending on the drug. I stumble over saying if I am a recovered addict or a recovering addict. Is my son in recovery? He is stable, so in remission? That could change tomorrow or next week or next year. Based on the above criteria he is not in recovery. Just wanted to say good question…


My problem with recovery is that other people’s definitions don’t match my own.

Is it to become like the rest of the world and do poorly what others do well, and lose my sense of value I have found along the way by my natural inclinations as - a schizophrenic?

I’ve read of other s who did that. Decided to do what they told them to do. And lost their feeling of worth as a human being. Lost their soul.

(posted elsewhere)

During 8yrs. Of my illness i have only experienced 1 hour of recovery. My symptoms are always with me, except my delusional thinking.

1 Like

Well DIScovery means to uncover what is there, so REcovery means to cover it up again.

Yep, that makes sense since the other 99% of the population seems to be darn good at covering all sorts of things about themselves up.

Comparison of a Person with Schizophrenia and
a Person who has Recovered

1 Like

Recovery does not happen in 2 cases:
1-if the schizophrenia is a genetic disease
2-if the schizophrenia is not a disease at all
{Sz is causing disordered symptoms but the ontological case of sz in itself is not disease}

-Anyone of you think that it is axiomatic to believe that the sz is a disease or illness,therefore
he asks his question about the recovery from sz,where there is no recovery
the simple question:
why you did not try the second possibility ?
that is to say,the sz is not a disease/illness but something different !

All of you will ask surprising: how could it be true that possibility with a tremendous momentum
of the symptoms of disorder ?
there are many symptoms of disorder,how can we believe that there is no any disease or illness ?

This is the difference between the insight of geniuses and surface visibility of the general public !
=Genius is a person who is expected that the presence of a disease condition produces disordered symptoms is purely a false belief !!

-With someone who is sick with high pressure or diabetes,the patient has to be taking medication for lifelong,and his condition will deteriorate if he refuses to take medication

-While everyone knows that there are many schizophrenic individuals take the drug for a period of one month or 3-6 ,then declined it for lifelong and they lived their lives normally
because,they have become convinced that the disordered symptoms disappeared,which helps
for doing mental and behavioral activities in a way that is acceptable,but the ontological case of the sz itself remained inside themselves “represented in the imaginary vibrant pictures and the voices” because the drug is unable to remove it because it is not a symptoms of any type of disease or illness

-the vibrant heard voices are not chemical in its nature,and they have not any physical nature,
they are information,data,knowledge causing the thought phenomenon for the listener {regardless it is coping false thoughts}
=there is no any disease in the nature can causing the thought phenomenon for the patient all time of waking/ lifelong by rate 20-40 ideas in one minute !!
=how can all of you think that the schizophrenic process is a symptoms of disease ?!?

For me, I felt recovered when I had friends that weren’t all mentally ill.


I would appreciate shorter responses/answers from you, it is difficult for me to read and digest long abstract explanations. Simply put, schizophrenia is a brain disease/disorder - true recovery in the classic sense of the word does not exist, and yes it can be treated - tamed with medications. Insulin does not ‘cure’ type 1 diabetes but does control the symptoms, same thing goes for Antipsychotics and SZ


AT the beginning of schizophrenia and the moment of medical intervention
-supposed that,there are 2 person hit with SZ
-one of them will take the medication for one month
-second person will continue to take medication for lifelong

=before taking any medication,you can not diagnoses any actual disease in both of them by
using all possible means of lab,wherever you deal with a symptoms not with known disease

1-regard with the person who take medication for long term {lifelong}
regardless the upswing in the mental and behavioral activities,you can diagnoses many
actual organic diseases in the person ,can not treated mostly
-the person has stills suffer from the existence of the ontological features of the sz
inside himself {represented in the heard voices},wherever the drug can not remove
the ontological features of sz

2-regard with the person who takes the medication for one month,and stop taking for ever,
you can not diagnoses any actual disease in the person in any period of time
-he has stills suffer from the existence of the ontological features of the sz case
inside himself {represented in the heard voices}

the conclusion:
1-Sz does not causing a disease in its onset or after long time ,although it is causing a disordered symptoms
-medication can treat the disordered symptoms through one month or 3-6 month
-medication can causing actual disease in long term !
-medication can not removing the ontological features of sz in short or long term,so that
there is no true recovery- no matter what is the meaning of word recovery

recovery from the disordered symptoms is vary different about recovery from the ontological
features of the sz itself
we hope it is easy to understand our language

You wrote{ Insulin does not "cure"type 1 diabetes but does not control the symptoms }
-if what you said were true:
the only conclusion: the insulin is not the causative factor of type 1 diabetes
meaning that,the insulin have no rule in development type 1. then have no rule
in treatment the type 1
-meaning that,it must be there is a hidden causative factor causing type 1 ,and causing
a symptoms can not treated by action of insulin,but may be treated by different medication if that is
-if you deny what we say,you should accept that; a development of diabetes disease
by insulin theory is just an idle talk
=I say what I say,while I have not any idea about the types of diabetes mainly
anyway,there is no similarity between the diabetes types and the sz from all aspects !

I was using it as an example - meaning diabetes and schizophrenia are illnesses with no cures but one can manage these illnesses through MEDICATION - they are similar in that sense

1 Like

According to the pure nature,schizophrenia is not a disease/illness,does not causing
a disease,does not arise from a disease,does not turn into a disease during its march
BUT schizophrenia causing a troubled symptoms
-so that,all troubled symptoms of Sz are not a symptoms of disease or illness !
-troubled symptoms of sz does not causing a disease or illness

=what we say is not a theoretical view,it is actual true,because ;
1-after the onset of schizophrenia,you can not diagnoses any disease “a whole condition”
in the schizophrenic individual in any period of time by means of lab
[where from you say the sz is illness? the sickness is the sickness,no matter you say illness or disease }
2-and it is natural to diagnoses the troubled symptoms,but that is not diagnoses of
the ontological nature of sz itself
-all troubled symptoms of sz are the end products of the activity of sz within the main nature
{psychological and biological}
-all symptoms are the results of schizophrenia
-there are a different between the SZ and the SymptomS of sz >> {the cause-the result}
like the different between the insulin and the symptoms of diabetes
like the different between the virus and the symptoms of flu
{the insulin or the virus are the ontological features of the disease itself}

if you want to treatment the diabetes,you should remove the symptoms of the disease,without removing the ontological features of insulin"cause of disease " from the body of sick man !!
so ,there is no full recovery from diabetes because you can not remove the causative factor
of the disease “insulin”
-while the functional characteristics of sz cause is like the virus not like the insulin,so that the full
recovery from sz must be remove the cause of sz from the body-self of schizophrenic individual,
but in reality all medication are unable to remove the cause of sz because he is living entity {conscious condition not a disease or symptoms of disease },you can image the cause of sz as a psychological virus

ALL of who write about sz in the medical reference,make big mistakes when they describe
the ontological nature of sz/,or in the comparison between sz and the other phenomena/ or when
they make comparison between the behavior of schizophrenic individual and the other normal individuals

so that,if someone belief that sz is a disease,this is pure words regard with the scientific lab

when you talk about sz,or speak about subject related sz like recovery
it is supposed that you know what is the schizophrenia in itself,and what is the symptoms of Sz

it is supposed that you know:
1-the ontological condition "existential symptom "
2-the functional condition "the functional activities "
3-the interactions with the human nature “the psychological and biological”
4-the results or the reactions "the symptoms of schizophrenia "

all of you make big mistake,because you put the ontological condition
of schizophrenia with the symptoms of Sz in one basket
in other words,you consider the schizophrenia itself and its symptoms is a single thing !
as if the schizophrenia is just a symptoms ,or the symptoms is the schizophrenia !!
and that is false knowing

notice that,when you talk about recovery,and the rule of medication with sz
it is understood that,the symptoms of sz are disappear,while the individual
remain to feels with the ontological condition inside himself
that is because there are two different phenomena ;
1-the ontological condition of SZ itself
2-the symptoms of Sz " the results of SZ "
the chemical drug effect only on the symptoms,and have no effectiveness
on the ontological condition of sz itself !!

the simple question:
why no one of you notice this fact ?

My gut feeling tells me that you are not on meds


if you feeling is your way to understand the world of things ?