Long vocaroo message I'll prolly regret

Lounge
1

Here is the transcription of the audio clip:

​"So I wanted to just talk about a few things that I might have said over the years on the forum. I kind of over the years might have had like an anti-psychiatry or pro-schizophrenia kind of position. That’s really not what I’m trying to get through some of my communications."

​"Really what the idea is it’s inspired by postmodernism. You know, the things I’m talking about."

​"It’s about analogy and comparative and symbolicmsimilarities you could say between schizophrenia andnother kind of dimensions of human behavior or thought.

​"So, that’s what I’m talking about. I’m completely for people taking medicine. I’m completely for people trying to improve their lives by overcoming the symptoms of schizophrenia through therapy and through sound thinking and things like that.

​"But there’s a point where being completely against schizophrenia marginalizes and worsens the the perception of the illness when we communicate in ways that make it seem completely unacceptable."

​And in some ways it is, but we can’t have a one-track mind about these things because if it’s not going away, you can believe there’s a cure on the horizon, and we can have hope for that. And then, do the whole thing with having faith and giving charity to the medical science in our generosity towards how we perceive them as being very adept at what they’re doing."

​"And—and they are. But this is an almost an insurmountable disease to cure. Because it takes place inside the brain, so it has genetic aspects and things like that. So you need, like, a targeted gene therapy. And targeted gene therapy is only really, uh, useful right now when targeting single genes in bone marrow or something like that.: An easier target.

​"I just want to make things clear. I always kind of regret some of my communications because I know they can be misconstrued."

​"I just want everyone to know that I have this problem with, schizophrenia. I’ve had it for the last 20 years or more you know. It’s been a difficult life, definitely. I can’t summarize it in a terse way that would make it, immediately understandable."

​"I’m sure everyone here can identify, even though we all have different experiences and different symptoms, even to the extent that, schizophrenia might not even be a single disease or something like that."

​"So, they’re just all talking points, things that everyone can think about if theyre so inclined, which I don’t think people are—are really inclined to think about the kind of nonsense I think about on a daily basis. That ive always been an over-thinker and at this point right now an over-talker."

​ I just wanted to, uh, summarize what kind of my treatment in the hospital."

​I was put on hydroxyzineas, a nervous system supressant to suppress the esophageal urging I had. So, I’m on a two-times daily dose of that."

​"And then I’m also taking 15 milligrams of Abilify. So, that seems to be controlling my psychotic symptoms, which include voices which I have to a mild extent. I don’t have severe voices but, they are considered a severe symptom, anyway."

​"And delusions, narcissistic-type delusions, like megalomania and, you know, that means like you have a greater effect on the world than you actually do, and delusions of grandeur, which are similar, but, you know, that you’re a more important person than you are. Things like that."

​"So, I have more problems than that, too. So, [Laughs] thank you very much for—I appreciate every one of you, and, um, take care. Thank you. Bye-bye."

6 Likes
2

I agree with a lot you say. Yeah anytime you interpret something that interpretation is open to interpretation. I always took what you wrote to be to the point. As far as schizophrenia in the future my doctor told me it’s a life long illness with possible periods of remission. Gene therapy? I’m not buying it. It’s a mystery.

3 Likes
3

Here is the transcription of that second audio clip:

​"Hey, it’s Winopolis. Uh, thanks for your reply. Um, I know, uh, you probably were more interested in other people and, uh, some of the things I said over the years, and the different manifestations of my, uh, user-ship."

​"First I was, uh, 1percentoff, and before that I was 1percenterc, then I was 1percentoff, then I became, uh, what was it, uh, Broken, and then, uh, Frenetic. I changed my name to Skizfro. I think that’s all of them. Um, yeah, like I—I always enjoyed reading your, uh, your paragraphs over the years."

​"They’re so varied and, um, you know, touch on so many aspects of philosophy that it’s very—it’s very difficult to kind of pigeonhole you into one way of thinking, like you’re—you’re so varied in, uh, you know, the scope and, uh, like the depth of what you—what you know and what you think about."

​"So, I mean, I only really think about one type of thing, like, critical, you know, not critical, like, schizophrenia or something like that. Like, I—I—I don’t really—I don’t really think about so many different philosophers and so many different, uh, you know, topics."

​"You know, one—one thing I remember saying, um, uh, was like six or five or six—whatever years ago when I started using the forum, was that, you know, the posts that you were making—I remember one of the—one of the mods was making an issue about you—you having so many, um, posts about, uh, just—just, like, referencing different philosophies and different ideas."

​"And I remember coming to your defense and saying, uh, ‘Oh, it just appeals to, like, the introverted nature of—of schizophrenics,’ or something like that, which is, like, a—which is, like, a broad general, generalization."

​"I mean, but, you know, it—it least appeals to me and you. That’s—that’s—let’s be fair in that regard, but it is kind of unfair to other people, uh, I guess, who—who might not appreciate that—that content, and who just want—want to talk about their illness or whatever."

​"But I think, um, I think you’re—what having the interests that you do in philosophy and bringing it to the forum and other subjects and, you know, you talk about more subjects than just philosophy, you talk about, uh, you know, psychology and, uh, anyway, the list goes on what—what the things that you’re interested in."

​"But, um, you know, like, there’s a—there’s a way of, like, when you talk about it, you bring those issues back around to schizophrenia, and broadening—broadening the idea of schizophrenia, I think, is way better than narrowing it into, like, a microscopic, uh, you know, object that, you know, of, um, you know, complete, uh, uh, complete, uh, I don’t know, object. I can’t think of a word for what I was gonna say there, but, anyway, I’m gonna end it off right now because I—I’ve overtalked, uh, you know, talking faster than I could think, that kind of thing."

​"So, um, thanks for, uh, all—all that you do on the forum, is Win."

3 Likes
4

Anyway I wanted to practice talking a bit before sleep because I plan to talk to someone tomorrow and I rarely talk to anyone. Not going to make a habit of it.

4 Likes
5

Good things, I always enjoy reading your ideas

3 Likes
6

@Schizbro this was posted by @2Waynez and this helped me regarding what you have said

When Dr. Phil says “life is managed; it is not cured,” he means that human struggles, challenges, and personal flaws are ongoing conditions to be actively handled rather than fixed once and for all. [1, 2]

This concept is Life Law #7 from his book Life Strategies. The core ideas include: [1, 2]

  • No permanent fix: People often wait for a magical moment, breakthrough, or solution that will permanently solve their problems so they can coast through life unopposed. Dr. Phil argues that challenges never stop; when you solve one, new demands or problems will appear.
  • You are the driver: You cannot be a passive passenger waiting for life to get better. You are the “life manager” of your own existence and must take daily personal accountability to steer your results.
  • Active strategy is required: Effective living requires a clear-cut plan, constant tracking, and ongoing effort in areas like self-control, emotional regulation, relationships, and work performance. Success is a moving target that must be actively pursued every single day
2 Likes
7

****Unrelated ****

Has anyone heard of "the problem of definitions "? I looked it up and it’s a real thing. I was thinking about the complexity of the universe and realized how many processes,layers,dimensions and contexts there were. This led me to believe that our definition usually only describe things from one vantage point(like my teacher says) and that most of the time things are wildly complex and complicated.

Anyways. Later on I realized that some of the stuff I was referring to only possible existed in the minds of thinking beings. And I realized there was a problem with defining things as they are. I read something by bertrand Russell a long time ago that talked about there being different kind of facts particulars and other types I cant remember.

Anyways… This is probably obvious and not interesting but I thought it important. Anyways ..didn’t meant to butt in on your thing @Schizbro …just really love talking about stuff like that

The more I understand the more I know my ignorance…that quote is right on… Whoever made it

4 Likes
8

This is fascinating and interesting and amazing. Like to me what is the difference between knowledge and intelligence. Like I’m pondering that knowledge is getting information into the brains memory. Intelligence is figuring things out. Thinking is a sign of intelligence. Learning is a form of knowledge. Ignorance can only exist if there is knowledge to be ignorant of. Intelligence is joyful and fun and pleasing for me. Knowledge is learned for teaching to others. Which for me results in my ignorance. My intelligence for me is for my joy and happiness and intrigue and amusement and fascination with whatever can be taught to me as knowledge.

3 Likes
9

Bertrand Russell’s philosophy of language directly connects how we use linguistics to how we define “particulars” (the individual, concrete things in the world). He argued that our everyday language is deeply misleading and masks the true logical structure of reality.

To bridge linguistics and metaphysics, Russell introduced two core concepts: the Theory of Descriptions and Knowledge by Acquaintance vs. Description.

1. The Linguistic Problem of “Particulars”

In everyday speech, we use proper nouns (like “Socrates” or “Paris”) to refer to specific particulars. Russell realized this creates a massive linguistic and logical paradox:

  • If a particular does not exist, a sentence naming it should be meaningless.
  • However, the sentence “The present King of France is bald” is clearly meaningful, even though there is no current King of France.
  • If proper nouns directly name particulars, how can we speak meaningfully about things that do not exist?

2. The Theory of Descriptions (Eliminating Pseudo-Particulars)

To solve this, Russell argued that most grammatical proper nouns are not actually naming “particulars” at all. Instead, they are disguised definite descriptions.

  • When we say “Socrates,” we actually mean a collection of descriptions: “The philosopher who drank hemlock, taught Plato, lived in Athens, etc.”
  • When we translate everyday language into Formal Logic, descriptions are broken down into existential claims.
  • The sentence “The present King of France is bald” logically translates to:
    1. There is an x, such that x is currently the King of France.
    2. There is only one such x (uniqueness).
    3. x is bald.
  • Because condition #1 is false, the entire sentence is simply false, not meaningless. By turning names into descriptions, Russell proved we can use linguistics to talk about non-existent things without being forced to assume they exist as actual particulars in the universe.

3. Logically Perfect Language and Genuine Particulars

If most names are just descriptions, what are the real particulars? Russell argued that a Logically Perfect Language would have a one-to-one relationship between words and reality. In this ideal linguistic system, a word would only count as a “logically proper name” if it designated a particular with which the speaker had immediate, direct certainty.

He divided our interaction with the world into two types:

  • Knowledge by Acquaintance: Direct, unmediated awareness of something. Russell argued we are not actually acquainted with physical objects (like a table), but only with our immediate sense-data (the color, shape, and hardness we perceive).
  • Knowledge by Description: Everything else we infer about the physical world based on that sense-data.

Summary of Russell’s Definition

Under Russell’s framework, true particulars are not physical objects, but the momentary building blocks of experience (sense-data, patches of color, specific sounds, or internal feelings).

Consequently, the only true “logically proper names” in linguistics are words like “this” or “that.” When you point to a flash of light and say “This is bright,” “this” cannot fail to refer to a real particular, because you are directly acquainted with it in that exact moment. Everything else we name in linguistics is just a logical construction built out of descriptions

2 Likes
10

I remember this that example about the king of france too. I didn’t understand it back then but I kinda get what he’s saying now. It’s amazing how detailed and exact a person’s thinking can be. For a slow head like me I’m gonna have to read it a couple of times lol

3 Likes
11

Do you agree with his idea about knowledge by acquaintance and definitions is a fix for the issue?

And aside from particulars …what do you make of the reality of things like dynamics apposed to those real momentary sense data?

I guess I’m having a hard time regardless of language …to distinguish something like a leaf and that leaf blowing to the ground…

Does that “blowing to the ground” qualify as a real thing not the leaf or the ground or wind and not the concept of blowing to ground but the actual thing? Is it a real thing?

If something like that is real then the amount of processes and dynamics or contexts are even more enormous and trying to describe something definitely would depend on something like particulars?

Like the demarcation is not real(Buddhism) and therefore things as particulars would still be only relatively true or real???

Bro..if I’m making myself sound stupid just tell me …

3 Likes
12

I think derrida finishes bertrand russells idea that words are signifiers and all words are built-in associations of definitions so no matter what you say each word rests on the definition of another word. So two people could read the same text and interpret it different ways based on interpretation of definitions and the loose association of what other words imply. No text stands alone. All language is used socially to interact. So as Wittgenstein said we all engage in social games. All language is a social game that is to be deconstructed to say everything and nothing at the same time. I think in terms of psychological behaviorism. Action changes behavior and thoughts. Thoughts only lead to more thoughts. Action should always be the main goal. Language doesn’t change people’s lives action does. I think experiencing something greater than yourself has to be an experience not just reading words. You can read a holy book and it will only lead you intellectually. To read about drinking water doesn’t quench your thirst. The greatest things in life must be experienced.

2 Likes
13
3 Likes
14

Here is the transcription of that third audio clip:

​"Hey, bud. Thanks for your reply. Uh, I—I think the reason why people don’t talk about their delusions as much as they—they should, and but they do, is that they’re hard to, uh, sometimes talk about because, you know, hard to access those memories and things like that sometimes, you know? That—that’s—that’s one of my problems is, like, you know, delusional memories and things like that are not, like, you know, accessing something that’s not real and something that you don’t really want to think about. That’s—that’s kind of how I feel."

​"Yeah, I’ve had—I’ve had so many delusions over the years that it’s, um, it’s not really, uh, [Coughs] something I can easily talk about. But, yeah, I—I can, uh, identify with a lot that you say there, and, um, appreciate that everyone on the forum has, uh, their own set of issues. I wouldn’t say we’re all exactly the same, have the same severity, or, um, even have had the same difficulties in life."

​"But, uh, what you say is true, man, so, uh, I appreciate, uh, the advice that you’ve given and, uh, grampathy and things like that, and good luck to you, bud."

15

I’m also very pro med and friendly to psychiatry, but it’s fascinating how no one truly knows what sz is like until they get it/or have it. Like nearly everyone with sz feels there is definitely a spiritual or metaphysical like component to it. But everyone who doesn’t have it sees it as clearly clinical. I find it fascinating how a lot of delusions and voices are Judeo-Christian based in the West, but in the East it’s more based on more delusions and voices of failing your parents, or loved ones. So more Eastern values. It makes me truly believe there is something more to this illness. Something floating in the ether of the human condition. But then again, maybe I’m delusional? Lol. :upside_down_face:

6 Likes
16

Yes, like @Montezuma said— it’s pretty interesting how the nature of the illness and the experience of schizophrenia changes across cultures. It really does warrant a lot more research for sure.

To add, I do think it’s also also a matter of trying to simplify a rather complex illness— to view and treat SZ and psychosis-spectrum conditions through only a medical lens does a great disservice to folks experiencing the illness.

This is an illness that not only affects the brain, but also the mind. It affects consciousness, psyche, and being.

Therefore, we simply cannot expect to treat a serious illness like SZ/SZA/etc., without also looking at these conditions through companion methodologies and lines of reasoning:

Viewing SZ and related illnesses through multiple lenses can offer different modalities of treating the same illness— a comprehensive, multi-pronged approach, if one can say.

And I believe for a condition as multifaceted as SZ— one that manifests and presents differently across cultures as well as individuals— there really should be a tailored approach to not only treatment of the illness, but also understanding the stories behind the symptoms in order to lessen their hold over people, and finally, the rehabilitation and reintegration of people living on the psychosis spectrum back into society.

(NB: this illness is so varied, that no path is the same for every individual. Symptoms and needs vary, so every person’s road to recovery will look different— but I believe the main takeaway from this is that nobody gets left behind. The system we have now has way too many cracks, and plenty of folks living with SZ/SZA/etc. get lost in the shuffle. That shouldn’t be—we need a holistic, comprehensive approach to addressing psychosis spectrum illnesses that will ultimately help alleviate symptoms and allow folks to feel like themselves again.)

6 Likes
17

Here is the transcription of that fourth audio clip:

​"Yes, uh, that’s an issue in cross-cultural psychiatry. Um, but if you want to think about it in terms of, uh, outside of, uh, psychiatric thinking, in post-—in postmodernism, there’s kind of like a resis-—resistance or a rejection of objectivity."

​"So, when you have, um, when you have, like, an idea about, um, cultural differences between manifestations of schizophrenia symptoms, it kind of challenges objective understanding of what exactly it is."

​"So, I remember—just to give an example, Poet, the one of the mods on the forum here, long-time member, he—he wrote a—he wrote a topic on, uh, animals not really being herbivores or something like that."

​"And his basic premise of that was challenging objectivity, right? The objectivity that we—how we understand, um, animals in a sort of a factual way and how that easily can be overthrown by looking at kind of a spectrum of behaviors."

​"So, that—that’s kind of where postmodernism has gone, and you—you see it, um, in, in, uh, certain ways, like, [Coughs] in psych—psychosis spectrum, understanding and autism and stuff like that."

​"So, um, yeah, that’s—that’s the direction that things are going, even though psychiatry has adopted it, it—it is greatly influenced by postmodernism."

​"Um, but, um, I—I tend not to think about things in terms of the psychiatric way, just because I’m not going to be a psychiatric professional, but postmodernism is, like, open to interpretations of, of all sorts of thinking for everyone."

​"So, um, that’s where I’m more inclined to, uh, do my thinking and, and some writing and things like that that I do."

​"Um, but, um, yeah, it definitely is an interesting area, and I see that you have some well-thought-out ideas there, and, um, thank you for sharing."

1 Like
18

Here is the transcription of that audio clip:

​"So I wanted to, uh, address the issue of, uh, looking at, um, the condition through only a medical lens, which you acknowledge does a great disservice."

​"Um, but not only through a medical lens, uh, even things like sociological functionalism. So you have, like, the concept of, uh, reintegration."

​"So, that implies a lot. So, that comes from, like, the Durkheimian, uh, functionalist, sociological, uh, perspective."

​"So, basically, it implies, um, you know, how a person is a member of society or if they’re becoming a non-nic or whatever, right? A non-nic just means someone has become normal, like they’re not following the norms of society."

​"And that’s, uh, that’s a—this—this is the type of objectivity that postmodernism would reject, right? So, much, much of what you said was very on point, except for this— [Coughs] reintegration thing. Rehabilitation, I’m not going to touch, but reintegration, that implies too much about, uh, being an objective member of society, right?"

​"So, having unity, having solidarity with people, and also the integration point, which is what does it imply, right? So, when you say that you’re not an integrated member of society, just because maybe as you present that you stay home a lot of the time and you don’t interact with a lot of people, even though for a lot of reasons there’s a good reason for that, for your own personal safety and psychological benefit."

​"So, I would say someone is—is, uh, an integrated schizophrenic, not to be objective, by just not, um, being, like, a detrimental person in society. They don’t have to be involved in social life and things like that."

​"Right? So, integration implies a lot. Like, whether someone accepts, uh, conventional institutions or participates in social life or, uh, has a family, you know, and follows, like, the broader norms of the society, right?"

​"So, everything you said except for that there, reintegration, I have—I—I had a—a problem with. Or I—I didn’t have a problem with anything except for the integration point. So, I just wanted to make that—make that clear."

19

@Lilyofthevalley @TheCanuk @POET @staff @SzSupportAdmin @sweetpotatopie

Mods can you please close this thread for blatant mansplainations. Jk but fr though there are.

2 Likes