[Vision2020] The Politics of Experience (definition of schizophrenia)

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Joan et. al.

Part of the reason for posting those definitions of "schizophrenia" was to 
suggest the word does not carry enough precision and clarity to be used as 
medical terminology to scientifically describe a "mental" illness.  Consider the 
fact that there is offered distinct and differing definitions of schizophrenia, 
a state of affairs that would be laughable in the model science of physics: we 
do not see the American and European definitions of Einstein's Special 
Relativity.  Any such development would be regarded as infecting unacceptable 
scientific uncertainty to a level that could jeopardize the consistency and validity 
of the theory.  

Of course modern psychiatry is stuck in the epistemological quandary between 
organic and mental pathology: what is the difference between the two (here the 
mind/body problem in philosophy impacts science and the medical profession in 
profound ways), and is mental reducible to organic?  Or is it possible that 
at a certain level of organization in a neuronal and chemical based brain that 
emergent qualities result (Mind?) that cannot be explained as a sum of the 
parts?  Some neuroscientists assume that we can mostly reduce mental functioning 
to the biochemistry and connections in the brain.  If so, then "mental" 
illness disappears to be replaced with organic brain malfunctions. 

Furthermore, how do we differentiate between shifting cultural norms of what 
is considered "normal" behavior regarding what behaviors are to be viewed as 
symptoms of mental illness and what are not?  This later problem appears 
especially difficult when trying to place spiritual experiences into the context of 
what we describe as mental illness.  Indeed, the excerpt you posted from the 
so called "European" definition of schizophrenia, touches on this problem:

"The most intimate thoughts, feelings, and acts are often felt to be known to 
or shared by others, and explanatory delusions may develop, to the effect 
that natural or supernatural forces are at work to influence the afflicted 
individual's thoughts and actions in ways that are often bizarre. The individual may 
see himself or herself as the pivot of all that happens."

If someone believes a God made the Earth and humanity for a grand cosmic 
drama that hinges on whether or not they follow this God, with those following 
being saved for all eternity, and those not following being damned for all 
eternity, with a powerful common bond that is felt by all who share these beliefs, 
how does this scenario fit into the above definition?

Please, no one jump on me for being unfair to spiritual ideologies of any 
kind.  I am merely pointing out that there is a major problem in defining mental 
illness in a manner that will result in the majority of people exhibiting 
serious symptoms.  

I tend to think modern psychiatry is overreaching in what forms of behavior 
and thought they determine to be "illness."  Irrationality, wild fantasies and 
behavior, and intense feelings that seem "inappropriate" are part of being 
human.  To define many of these states of mind, body and behavior as pathology is 
imposing an objective scientific model, that has no scientific ethical 
foundation, onto the subjective and value relativistic world of human experience, a 
world that I think when dominated by the objective model of empirical science, 
is destructive to our humanity and all the complexity of expression and 
experience that is part of being human.

Psychiatry is a very problematic science insofar as it is difficult to 
separate ethical judgments that science usually brackets off as irrelevant to the 
objective study of the phenomena being investigated, from the sorts of judgments 
psychiatry is forced to provide.  In effect, psychiatry is forced to become 
very unscientific when placing value judgments on what sorts of human 
experience are considered "pathological" or not.  Physicists do not concern themselves 
with whether matter is sane or insane.  Psychiatry is forced to operate at the 
boundary between mind and matter, a boundary that creates very serious 
problems in theory of knowledge.

If Vincent Van Gogh had been medicated by the dictates of modern psychiatry, 
would he have painted the brilliant and marvelous work that he gave to 
humanity?  Should we medicate extreme states of experience out of existence if it 
means taking away the pain, despair and conflict which can be the foundation for 
profound states of mind that lead to great art and spiritual insight?

Given the power humanity does have, and will have to a much greater degree, 
to alter our brain chemistry and our genetics influencing the mind, should we 
aim for a society of "happy" people, where extreme unhappiness and/or "bizarre" 
behavior will be medicated or genetically modified out of existence?

And given this immense power over the nature of human subjective experience 
that modern psychiatry is developing, who will control these tools of managing 
the mind?  The government, the white coated researchers, the psychiatrists in 
leather comfort chairs pondering the human condition?  Or should it be your 
chosen priest, priestess or shaman?

"The Politics of Experience" by R. D. Laing explores some of these issues:


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/039471475X/103-2193648-8375043?v=glance

Of course Aldous Huxley was way ahead of his time when his novel "Brave New 
World" predicted a future where "unhappiness" was not allowed, with Soma as 
medication for those who became "unhappy," who did not conform to this engineered 
and highly regulated society.

Ted Moffett


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050505/2a3b0090/attachment.htm