Quantum Quack said:
Yes I guess so. Certainly a persons philosophy has immediate impacts on his beliefs and system of deriving a belief based on what he observes.
I completely agree...
Yes I am suggesting that psychosis tends to self justify itself within the frame work of what you have said is premised within a personal philosophy.
I wonder how you consider it. I mean... it is because of a persons "mental image" or "personal philosophy", that they are trying to cover up or somethin'? What is "normal" rather than abnormal in this case,then? Aren't most people like that, they try to self justify their own damn selfs?
Your addition to the arguement of "personal philosophy" is quite valid I feel
Thank you!... i guess
I think you are quite correct and yes this I feel limits the value of the definition I suggested and now in discussion.
Hell u know I was only sayin that the person with the psychos has a problem. That surely they don't like. That it really isn't their fault as much as maybe they would (or wouldn't) like it to be. Psychosis~ What is it?
I tend to think the issue is tied in with the issue of pleasure delivery to the consciousness of a person and how suffering and relief of suffering [pleasure ] cycles develope into cylces that lead to thoughts and actions not necessarilly in the best interests of that person.
(the following is also the continuation of this paragraph I believe)
Tending to think is great, because your beliefs are incred.
And surely it is like this with most people... But you know, not all psychosis is like this, (if you can agree with me). I mean, do I have a psychosis? Is my problem solved by saying that it is a pleasure principal?
How are we to determine the best interests of that person? I'm sorry if you don't like how I reply, qq. I just type. That's all. I don't know much different.
Let's see how you follow up...
A rountine that is not welcome, and as such, limits the ability of a person to improvise and be creative in how he handles lifes situations. A pattern of thought and behaviour that can not easilly be changed and thus not within the free-will of the individual thus leading to the sense of oppression and the behaviours that oppression tends to generate.
It is this simple: you are saying that psychosis is a evil terrible force (that the person doesn't undestand well?) While i'm dis-agreeing or sort, in that I hate to say it is "castration", final straw, you have this issue within (that is , of course, all psychosis's), that you can't do shit about, it is destroyed, fin. The end.
A rountine that is not welcome,
This is because of why?:
A pattern of thought and behaviour that can not easilly be changed and thus not within the free-will of the individual thus leading to the sense of oppression and the behaviours that oppression tends to generate
Anyway, if you're able to put upwith me, then I would say you're right, this is psychosis. This is defining "what is psychosis"! I wonder why it can't be easily changed. That sucks ass.
So I wasn't wrong, we can agree that psychosis is sad and terrible and they aren't all evil. That psychos are actually at fault, like the man who is castrated by the woman. Only women can in this sence be castrated here too

Advoid me then dammit!
So beliefs are sustained due to the pleasure such beliefs generate. Pleasure in this instance is not the pleasure you and I would normally consider to be pleasure but a simply the relief of suffering that a person is subconscously having to deal with. A bit like taking your shoes off at the end of a long walk, a pleasure based on the relief of suffering. The suffering may be a craving that has learned how to find relief even if that relief is detrimental to the long term interests of the person.
So it is an issue within the mind of the psycho" that they can't help, stuff inthe mind they have to deal with, and pleasure comes from the "irrational" relif of this?
"tis called Psycho accelleration [ it think - certainly that is what I would call it], which is often mistaken for mania or the manic side of a polarised mood."
Damn. What would you say about my mental status? (Check the mental health and existentialists: 2 thread. I'm moving further along i just want to know I have this possibility to be sane. And I want to hear it from YOU)
I think most persons have a limited insight into their psychosis and know that there is a extremely difficult cycle happening. Most person when coming to realise this fall into severe depression and suicidal tendancies simply becasue they feel totally hopeless in their attempts to resist the irresistable. My brother was a classic example of how suicide was felt to be the only solution to his "addiction"
I believe a lot of people are like this, but not all. I think This addiction is a normal example. But also that it does change over time. Some people have insight into it, and maybe everyone is sort of different here? Blech
Yes I tend to look at psychosis [ that is persistant ( thank you Light)] as an addiction to a line of reasoning or rational not unlike addiction to drugs such as nicotine or weed, or other drugs that are highly addictive.
So again you suggest it is totally irrational.... (of course, this doesn't leave your defination destroyed)
Endorphines are afterall extremely addictive and I tend to think it is the spike of endorphine that drives the psychosis.
Always? My psychosis then too is that way? If you could only tell me these things!

qq.
Futility of action, a sense of futility, the low possibility of re-learing the refexes necessary to govern mental / emotional behaviour and the need to withdraw from an addiction all add up to a terrible sense of self and a loss of empowerment and self proprietry. The addiction has control and not the person.
Last sentence only: and you suggest again that it is an evil force. Maybe not the person, right, but the force of evil. The force. The addiction. Futility of action, a sence of futility, the low possibility of re-learning the refexes nessary to govern mental / emotional behaviour, and the need to withraw from an addiction all add up to a terrible sence of self and a loss of empowerment and self propriety.
I disagree 100%. You are simply talking like you know these people are the worst people. You give them no sence of self yourself! You
do work for the CIA, eh? [deletes huge laughing face]
may be this should read:
"I tried to input some information and succeeded dramatically"
Once again, in this reply as well, it should be read as I said it in the first place! So I dis-agree with you there too!
Brent this thread is not about coming to a conclusion about definition. It is more about furthering the understanding of the issue. There is no ultimate understanding but more a collage of many understandings. Even if this thread became an encyclopeadia it would still be just a general understanding.
I must agree with you sort of. I think the defination will always be a general understanding!
However understanding reduces the fear involved which in turn reduces the problem, anxiety is a big part of all this. Undrrstanding may not remove the problem but it can provide an insight that allows the ability to deal with and mitigate it. And if you get really good at it the psychosis becomes simply you.
I do not like your definating psychosis as the person becoming the psychosis. I tend to think differently, as you said there are many general understandings.
There is a way of thought that involves using the psychosis to heal the psychosis. Using the extremes of thought to mitigate itself. Thus becoming self correcting. But to do so you need to know it well and understand what feeds it.
[/QUOTE]
Precisely.
Ditto
